Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 525 (HP)

Puran Chand @ Panku v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-27

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.23/2021, dated 02.02.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in issue), registered with Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 307, 147, and 149 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 District & Sessions Judge, Family Court, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. The relief of quashing has been sought on the basis of the compromise, effected between the petitioners and respondent No.2, who is complainant, as well as, respondents No.3 to 6, who are injured. 3. As per the case, set up by the petitioners, on 01.02.2021, complainant, along with respondents No.3 to 6, was going from Village Pandoh to his home Nandi in vehicle bearing Registration No.HP32-A-5422, make Alto. Respondent No.4 was driving the said vehicle. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that when, they all reached near Bathli, at about 07:30 pm, petitioners No.2, 3, 6 and 11, along with other friends, were on the way and they stopped their vehicle and started beating respondents No.3 to 6, without any reason. Thereafter, in order to save themselves, Hemraj (respondent No.5) and Dinesh Kumar (respondent No.6) ran away from the spot. 5. According to the petitioners, as per the complaint, submitted by respondent No.2, due to the said scuffle, respondents No.3 to 6 had sustained injuries and subsequently, on the statement of respondent No.2, FIR, in issue, has been registered. 6. It is the further case of the petitioners that after conducting the investigation, police has submitted the charge-sheet, before the learned trial Court, against petitioners No.1 to 10 and the report qua petitioner No.11, being minor, was sent to Juvenile Justice Board, Mandi, wherein, petitioner No.11, according to the petitioners, was acquitted. 7. According to the petitioners, the matter has now been compromised between them and respondents No.2 to 6 with the intervention of the respectables of the society. They have entered into compromise, on 11.03.2025, with respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, in issue, as well as, with respondents No.3 to 6. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2. 8. 7. According to the petitioners, the matter has now been compromised between them and respondents No.2 to 6 with the intervention of the respectables of the society. They have entered into compromise, on 11.03.2025, with respondent No.2, who has lodged the FIR, in issue, as well as, with respondents No.3 to 6. The Compromise Deed is Annexure P-2. 8. On the basis of the said compromise, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, as prayed for, by quashing the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, if any. 9. When, put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein, the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 10. The complainant, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, in this case, has been arrayed as respondent No.2 and the injured, in this case, have been arrayed as respondents No.3 to 6. 11. Today i.e. 27.03.2025, respondent No.2/ complainant, appeared before this Court and deposed, on oath, that on the basis of his statement, FIR, in issue, has been lodged against the petitioners. 12. Respondent No.2/complainant has further deposed that since, he, petitioners, as well as, respondents No.3 to 6 are from the same area, as such, in order to live peacefully, now, the matter has been settled with the petitioners, vide Compromise Deed Annexure P-2. He has also deposed that in view of the compromise, he has no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 13. In addition to this, respondent No.2 has also shown his voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioners, by stating that compromise has been effected out of his free will, consent and without any pressure. 14. Similar joint statement has also been made by respondents No.3 to 6, on oath. 15. Respondents No.3 to 6 have deposed that they, petitioners and respondent No.2 are from the same area. He further deposed that a quarrel had taken place between them and thereafter, on the statement of respondent No.2, FIR in issue has been lodged against the petitioners. 16. 15. Respondents No.3 to 6 have deposed that they, petitioners and respondent No.2 are from the same area. He further deposed that a quarrel had taken place between them and thereafter, on the statement of respondent No.2, FIR in issue has been lodged against the petitioners. 16. Respondents No.3 to 6 have further deposed that in the said scuffle, they all had sustained injuries, but, in order to live peacefully in the society and considering the fact that they are from same area, the matter has been compromised with the intervention of the respectables of the society. 17. Besides this, respondents No.3 to 6 have also shown their voluntariness and willingness to enter into the compromise with the petitioners, by stating that compromise has been effected out of their free will, consent and without any pressure. They have further deposed that they have no objection, if the present petition is allowed, as prayed for. 18. Similar joint statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 19. Petitioners, in their statement, have deposed that on account of scuffle, respondent No.2 has lodged the FIR in issue against them. They have further deposed that petitioner No.11-Hitesh Gupta was minor at the time of incident and the report, qua petitioner No.11, was submitted to Juvenile Justice Board, Mandi, in which, he has been acquitted. 20. Heard. 21. In this case, the criminal machinery was put into motion, by respondent No.2, by lodging the FIR, in question. Respondents No.3 to 6 are the persons, who had allegedly suffered the injuries, in the scuffle. However, when, they appeared before the Court, deposed that since, they and petitioners are from the same area, as such, in order to maintain future cordial relations, they have compromised the matter. 22. Once, the person, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, has exonerated the petitioners from the allegations, by stating, on oath, that he, respondents No.3 to 6 and petitioners are from the same area, as such, in order to live peacefully in the society, they have entered into the compromise, in such situation, the chances of success of prosecution case, against the petitioners, are very bleak. 23. 23. When, the petitioners, as well as, respondents No.2 to 6, have buried all their disputes, by compromising the matter, vide Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law. 24. 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 petitioners, as well as, respondents No.2 to 6 to live peacefully in the society. 25. Even otherwise, 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. 26. Moreover, this Court is satisfied with the genuineness of the compromise, Annexure P-2, entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2. 27. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.23/2021, dated 02.02.2021, registered with Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 341, 323, 307, 147, and 149 of the IPC, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed. 28. The Compromise Deed, Annexure P-2, and the statements of the parties, shall form part of the judgment. 29. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.