Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 476 (HP)

Rajesh Guleria v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-24

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Virender Singh, J.) Petitioner-Rajesh Guleria has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), seeking the relief of quashing of FIR No.65/2023, dated 26.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in issue), registered with Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 376, 506 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. According to the applicant, the abovementioned case has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2, in which, the police registered the FIR in issue and thereafter, conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet, which is pending adjudication, before the Court of learned trial Court. 3. The relief of quashing has been sought on the ground that the matter has now been settled, between the parties and now, as per the settlement, respondent No.2 does not want to proceed further with the case. 4. On the basis of the settlement, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing the FIR, in issue, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court. 6. When, put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, disclosing therein that respondent No.2 had put the criminal machinery into motion by moving the complaint, in which, she has got recorded that one Karam Chand, R/o Rajol Lunch, had owed money from her and in lieu of that liability, said Karam Chand has issued a cheque, amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and that cheque was taken away from her by one Rajesh Kumar R/o Dehra Chowk, Indra Restaurant Nagarota Surian (petitioner), on the pretext that he will deposit the same in the bank. Subsequently, she gave the cheque to Rajesh. Thereafter, Rajesh started saying that the cheque has been bounced and he will file a case against said Karam Chand in the Court, as, he knows many lawyers. According to her, this happened almost two years ago. 7. According to the complainant, after a couple of months, when she asked Rajesh about the cheque, then, he told her to come to his restaurant, where, they will sit and talk. According to her, this happened almost two years ago. 7. According to the complainant, after a couple of months, when she asked Rajesh about the cheque, then, he told her to come to his restaurant, where, they will sit and talk. When, she went to his restaurant, he took her to the backroom cabin and started talking about random things and also threatened her and raped her forcefully and said that if she will tell anyone about this, he will kill her, as well as, her family. He said that he has also made her video. According to her, he kept blackmailing and sexually exploiting her. Thereafter, Rajesh started saying that whenever, he will call her, she will have to come. 8. It is the further case of the complainant that thereafter, on 16.11.2022, he called and asked her to talk about the cheque. When, she went to him, he took her to his factory and raped her and said that he has taken the money for the cheque from Karam Singh and he will not give her this money and said that do whatever she wants, as he is an influential person. 9. Thereafter, complainant reported the matter to DSP Jawali, through mobile phone, then DSP informed the Police Post In-charge Nagrota Surian. The Post In-charge called her and said that she will get justice. Subsequently, Rajesh got the hint of the same, and he, along with the Panchayat Chief, pressurized her by saying that he will be insulted or will die and also said not to file a case against him and also gave her cheque amounting to Rs.3 lacs and said that the remaining amount of Rs.2 lacs will be given later. After 1-2 days, there was a theft in her house, due to which, she was worried, then, Rajesh told her that there is some mistake in the cheque, which has to be corrected and took the said cheque from her and did not give any money. 10. According to the complainant, now, she is demanding her money from Rajesh, but, he denied by saying, telephonically, that send her daughter to him for the night and also threatened her to kill. As such, it has been prayed that the action be taken against Rajesh. 11. On the basis of above facts, police has registered the case and subsequently, police machinery swung into motion. 12. As such, it has been prayed that the action be taken against Rajesh. 11. On the basis of above facts, police has registered the case and subsequently, police machinery swung into motion. 12. After completion of the investigation, police has filed the charge-sheet, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 13. Now, by way of the present petition, petitioner is seeking the relief of quashing of FIR in issue, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between the parties. 14. Today, the person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion i.e. respondent No.2, appeared before this Court and made a statement, on oath. In her statement, she has totally exonerated the petitioner from the allegations, which have been levelled against him, in the FIR in issue, by stating that due to some misunderstanding, she has lodged the FIR. 15. Respondent No.2 further deposed that petitioner is known to her. Not only this, she has deposed that with the intervention of the respectables of the society, now, she has settled the matter with the petitioner. 16. Lastly, in unequivocal terms, respondent No.2 has deposed that she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed by quashing the FIR in issue, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto. 17. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner, on oath. 18. Heard. 19. Although, the case has been registered, under Section 376 of IPC, however, when, respondent No.2, appeared before this Court, she has taken a different stand by stating that the petitioner was known to her and due to some misunderstanding, she has lodged the FIR. Meaning thereby, the chances of success of the prosecution case, before the learned trial Court, are very bleak, as, the star witness, who at one point of time had levelled the allegations against the petitioner that he had raped her, now, took a new plea that due to some misunderstanding, she has lodged the FIR, in issue. 19. Moreover, respondent No.2 is not a young lady, but, a lady of about 37 years, who deposed on oath that due to some misunderstanding, she has lodged the FIR, in issue. 20. 19. Moreover, respondent No.2 is not a young lady, but, a lady of about 37 years, who deposed on oath that due to some misunderstanding, she has lodged the FIR, in issue. 20. Even otherwise, when, the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, then, the prayer, so made by the petitioner, in the present petition, is liable to be accepted. 21. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. Acceptance of the petition would also give another opportunity to the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.2 to live peacefully in the society. 22. Furthermore, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it. 23. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 24. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.65/2023, dated 26.04.2023, registered with Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 376, 506 and 201 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 25. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 26. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.