Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 939 (HP)

Chaman Lal v. State of H. P.

2025-05-07

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 102 of 2023, dated 6.12.2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 380, 504, 506 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Police Station, Arki, District Solan, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that due to some mis-understanding between the petitioners, and respondent No. 2, FIR in question has been lodged against the petitioners. After registration of the FIR, Police has conducted investigation in the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioners, which is stated to be pending in the learned trial Court. 3. It is also the case of the parties that now, the matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Annexure P-2, as the parties are related to each other and want to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made. 5. When put to notice, respondent-State has filed status report, disclosing therein the factual position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 6. It is the further case of respondent- State that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed, which is pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court. 7. The person, who had put criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 2, has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations between him, and the petitioners, as they are related to each other. 8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter. 9. 8. Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter. 9. Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 10. Heard. 11. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has categorically stated, in his statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, in order to maintain their cordial relations, in future. 12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioners, and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has no objection, in case, the FIR in question, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed and the present petition is allowed. 13. Moreover, when, the parties have settled the dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioners, and respondent No. 2, have buried all their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 15. Acceptance of the compromise would also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as, the learned trial Court would be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings consequent thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 17. The statements of the parties and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.