IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.251/2024.

Date of Decision: 13th December, 2024.

Abhilash Kumar .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …..Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shourya Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. B.N. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State.

Mr. Rohit Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral).

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.98 of 2017 dated 12.09.2017, under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B of IPC registered at Police Station Aut, District Mandi, H.P., as well as consequent judicial proceedings arising out of the same.

2. In the proceedings arising from the aforesaid FIR, the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, HP in Sessions Trial No.27/2021/2018 had acquitted the present petitioner for charges framed under Section 366 read with Section 120B of the IPC but convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. As a consequence

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

whereof, the petitioner had to undergo SI for two years and to pay a fine Rs.20,000/-.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment, a Criminal Appeal bearing No.3 of 2023, titled Abhilash Kumar Vs.

State of HP & Ors is pending adjudication before this Court.

4. However, during the pendency of appeal, the dispute inter se parties has been settled amicably vide compromise dated 25.10.2023, which is appended alongwith the present petition as Annexure P-2.

5. In view of the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (13) SCC 635. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court specifically to Paragraph-13 thereof, wherein, it has been provided that after conviction during the pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Court, FIR can still be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant extract thereof is being reproduced herein below:-

"13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.PC, are exercisable in postconviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub judicial before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sine quo non to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).

6. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the present petition is maintainable.

7. Statement of respondent No.2/complainant and respondent No.3/victim stand recorded. They have categorically stated that they have entered into compromise of their own free will, volition and without any pressure. According to respondents No.2 & 3 , the dispute inter se parties stands amicably settled.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

9. This Court sees no impediment in quashing the FIR in issue, as the dispute inter se the parties stands amicably resolved.

10. From a pe