Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Ram Krishan Alias Ramu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Petition(Main) No. 481 of 2021
Decided On : 28-10-2021
Section 482 - Quashing of FIR and Judgment - IPC 341, 323, 324, 506 - The court discussed the compromise between the parties and the legal provisions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It highlighted the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offence, the possibility of conviction, and the impact on society. The court accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and judgment based on the genuine nature of the compromise and the petty nature of the offences.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash FIR No.133, dated 7.6.2006, registered under sections 341, 323, 324, and 506 of IPC, based on a compromise with the complainant. The complainant alleged assault and injuries caused by the petitioner and others, leading to a judgment of conviction and sentence by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compromise between the parties was genuine and accepted it, leading to the quashing of the FIR and the judgment. It considered the nature of the offences, the possibility of conviction, and the impact on the parties' future relationship.
Issues: The issues involved the quashing of the FIR and judgment based on the compromise, the nature and gravity of the offences, and the impact on the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing the nature and gravity of the offence, the possibility of conviction, and the impact on society. It accepted the compromise and quashed the FIR and judgment based on the genuine nature of the compromise and the petty nature of the offences.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, accepted the compromise, and quashed the FIR and judgment, acquitting the accused of the charges.
ORDER
1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.133, dated 7.6.2006, registered at police Station, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., under sections 341, 323, 324 and 506 of IPC, as well as for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.1.2011, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora, District Kangra, H.P., on the basis of the compromise arrived interse parties (Annexure P-3), whereby parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2/complainant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that on 6.6.2006, while he alongwith persons namely, Anil Kumar, Mehar Chand and Kulwant Singh were going to their respective houses from Talwara, at around 11.00 PM, near Khatiar road, a car bearing registration No. HP-54-6640 being driven by Ram Kumar son of Sh. Roshan Lal stopped just in front of them and when he asked the driver of the vehicle to remove the car, he brought a weapon from inside his car and gave blow of the same on his left arm. Complainant also alleged that other persons sitting in the car also gave him beatings with kicks, as a consequence of which, he suffered injuries on his left arm, head and back. Complainant alleged that Anil Kumar and Kulwant Singh rescued him with great difficulty. In the aforesaid background, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged against the petitioner. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Indora District, Kangra after having found petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 324 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/-and in default of payment of fine to under undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 506 (II) IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Court below, petitioner-accused has filed appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra, which is still pending adjudication. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioner-accused has entered into the compromise with the complainant/respondent No.2, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them and as such, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.1.2011 passed by learned trial Court.
5. Pursuant of order dated 30.9.2021, respondent-State has filed status report, perusal whereof, reveals that though respondent- complainant has admitted factum with regard to compromise placed on record, but has stated that terms and conditions contained in the compromise has been not fulfilled by the petitioner-accused. Respondent-complainant has come present in person in Court and is being represented by Sh. Raj Thakur, Advocate.
6. Respondent-complainant states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioner, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. He states that since petit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
