Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Narotam Ram and Another - Appellants
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 1318 of 2024
Decided On : 06-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kamal Kant Chandel
For the Respondents: Mohinder Zharaick, H.S. Rawat, Ranjana Patial, Dhanvir Singh, Heena Chauhan

The court emphasized that when parties to a dispute compromise amicably, the continuation of legal proceedings would constitute an abuse of process, thus justifying the quashing of the FIR.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 451, 323, 504, 506, and 34 - Quashing of FIR sought based on a compromise between family members - Legal proceedings ongoing; compromise acknowledged by the complainant in court - Continuation of proceedings deemed an abuse of legal process when resolution achieved. (Paras 1, 6, 18, 21)

(B) Compromise in criminal cases - Law aims to maintain peace; allowing discontinuity of legal proceedings post-compromise promotes judicial efficiency. (Paras 18, 20)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, family members of the complainant, sought quashing of FIR No.121/2020 due to a compromise reached with complainants, stated to be relatives, during ongoing proceedings. Respondent No.6 confirmed voluntary compromise in court.

Findings of Court:
The Court recognized the genuineness of the compromise and deemed continuation of the case as an abuse of process, allowing the petition and quashing the FIR.

Issues: Whether the compromise between family members should lead to quashing ongoing proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that societal harmony is paramount, and allowing the proceedings to continue would only serve to abuse the legal process when the parties have settled their disputes amicably.

Result: Petition allowed, FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding fir and compromise. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14)
2. arguments related to precedent and necessity of quashing. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 15 , 16)
3. court emphasizes the importance of compromise for harmony. (Para 17)
4. court's reasoning on the necessity of maintaining harmony. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. decision to quash the fir and proceedings. (Para 21)
6. order of the court and resolution of pending matters. (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. 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.121/2020, dated 12.07.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, BSLColony, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., under Sections 451 , 323, 504, 506 and 34 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Sunder Nagar, 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, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondents No.4 to 12.

3. According to the petitioners, on the statement of petitioner No.1, cross FIR, bearing No.122 of 2020, dated 12.07.2020, under Sections 451 , 323 and 34 of IPC, with Police Station BSL Colony, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., has also been registered, against respondents No.4 to12.

4. After registration of the said cross FIR, the police has investigated the matter and has submitted the charge-sheet, bearing Police Challan No.185/2020, which is pending adjudication, before the Court of learned ACJM, Court No.1, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that after registration of the FIR, in question, police has conducted the investigation and submitted the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.

6. According to the petitioners, they and respondents No.4 to 12 are the family members and are living in the same place. During the pendency of the aforesaid case and in order to maintain their future cordial relations, they have compromised the matter with respondents No.4 to 12.

7. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are 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, pending before the learned trial Court.

9. When, put to notice, respondents No.1 to 3- State have filed the status report, mentioning therein the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.6, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case.

10. The petitioners have impleaded the complainant, as respondent No.6.

11. Today, respondent No.6 appeared before the Court and deposed, on oath, that petitioner No.1 is his real uncle and petitioner No.2 is his cousin. On the basis of his statement, FIR, in question, has been lodged, against the petitioners.

12. Respondent No.6 has further deposed that on the same day i.e. 12.07.2020, at the instance of petitioner No.1, who is his real uncle, FIR No.122 of 2020, dated 12.07.2020, under Sections 451 , 323 and 34 of IPC, with Police Station BSL Colony, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., has also been registered against him, respondents No.4, 5 and 7 to 10. After registration of the said FIR, police has investigated the said matter and has submitted the charge-sheet, bearing Police Challan No.185/2020, which is pending adjudication, before the Court of learned ACJM, Court No.1, Sunder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P.

13. Apart from this, respondent No.6 has al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document