Back
2022 Supreme(HP) 786
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Ramesh Kumar & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & Others - Respondents
Cr.MMO No. 916 of 2022
Decided On : 12-12-2022
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Singh Rana.
For the Respondents:Mr. Narender Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Jeet Singh.
Point of Law: They have stated that matter has been settled with petitioners and in view of such settlement, they do not want to prosecute petitioners further.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 451, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 - Compromise Deed - Prayed for quashing FIR - Petitioners and private respondents have settled their past dispute and have agreed to live in peace - Respondents No. 2 to 5 have made their statements in Court today and have accepted contents of compromise deed Annexure P-3 to be correct – Para 3.
Finding of the Court :
Court have gone through contents of compromise deed Annexure P-3 and have not found anything contrary to law - Petitioners and private respondents belong to same area - Petitioners belong to one family and respondents No. 2 to 5 belong to another - Both families have come closure by entering into a compromise - Compromise has been effected with a purpose to live in peace in future - In view facts and circumstances of case, FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of said FIR are ordered to be quashed.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. FIR No. 157 of 2016 dated 27.8.2016 under Sections 451, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
2. It is submitted that on behalf of the petitioners and private respondents that they have settled their past dispute and have agreed to live in peace. It is further submitted by them that they all belong to the same area and do not want to continue their strained relations. They have done so for their as well as future generations’ benefit.
3. Respondents No. 2 to 5 have made their statements in the Court today and have accepted the contents of compromise deed Annexure P-3 to be correct. They have stated that the matter has been settled with the petitioners and in view of such settlement, they do not want to prosecute the petitioners further.
4. Similarly, the joint statement of petitioners has also been recorded. They have also accepted the terms of Annexure P-3 to be the correct. They have further undertaken to abide by the terms of the compromise in future.
5. I have gone through the contents of the compromise deed Annexure P-3 and have not found anything contrary to law.
6. The petitioners and private respondents belong to same area. Petitioners belong to one family and respondents No. 2 to 5 belong to another. Both the families have come closure by entering into a compromise. The compromise has been effected with a purpose to live in peace in future.
7. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 157 of 2016 dated 27.8.2016 under Sections 451, 323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. and subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR are ordered to be quashed. The petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
