SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 24th DAY OF JUNE, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 443 of 2022 Between:-

1. LIYAKAT ALI, S/O RUKUM DEEN, AGED 47 YEARS.

2. SADH MOHD., S/O RUKUM DEEN, AGED 44 YEARS.

3. GULZAR MOHD., S/O RUKUM DEEN, AGED 41 YEARS.

4. HARIM BAKSH, S/O RUKUM DEEN, AGED 39 YEARS.

5. ACHHAR BIBI, W/O SADH MOHD., AGED 36 YEARS.

6. ARSHAAD BIBI, W/O LIYAKAT ALI, AGED 41 YEARS.

7. SALMA BIBI, W/O GULZAR MOHD., AGED 35 YEARS.

8. SHUKAR BIBI, W/O RUKUM DEEN, AGED 65 YEARS.

9. MOHAMMAD ALI, S/O SHER MOHD., AGED 58 YEARS.

10. MOHAMMAD AKRAM, S/O MOHAMMAD ALI, AGED 27 YEARS.

ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DHAR GUJJARAN, P.O. CHAKSARAI, TEHSIL AMB, DISTT. UNA (H.P.).

...PETITIONERS (BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.

2. KARIM BAKSH, S/O REHMAT ALI.

3. NAITA BIBI, W/O KARIM BAKSH. 4. SHABEER MOHD., S/O PEER MOHD.

ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DHAR GUJJARAN, P.O. CHAKSARAI, TEHSIL AMB, DISTT. UNA (H.P.). ...RESPONDENTS

5. NAWAB DEEN, S/O MOHAMMAD ALI, R/O VILLAGE DHAR GUJJARAN, P.O. CHAKSARAI, TEHSIL AMB, DISTT. UNA (H.P.)

...PROFORMA RESPONDENT (M/S DINESH THAKUR & SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS, WITH MR. AMIT DHUMAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL & MR. MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1. SHRI LAKSHAY PARIHAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2 TO R-4).

PARTIES ARE PRESENT IN PERSON.

Whether approved for reporting? No.

__________________________________________________________

This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the following:-

Advocates:
['Prashant Sharma', 'AG', '', 'Lakshay Parihar']

J U D G M E N T

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of a private Criminal Complaint No. 492/2013, titled as Karim Baksh Vs. Liyakat Ali and others, under Sections 452, 451, 324, 323, 447, 427, 149, 147, 148, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, H.P.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 and learned Additional Advocate General.

3. Respondents No. 2 to 4, who are present in person in the Court, have been duly identified by their counsel Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Advocate. Their statements have also been separately recorded in the Court, wherein they have stated that they have entered into a compromise with the accused and they are not interested in pursuing the matter which led to the filing of a private Criminal Complaint No. 492/2013, titled as Karim Baksh Vs. Liyakat Ali and others, under Sections 452, 451, 324, 323, 447, 427, 149, 147, 148, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, H.P. Copy of compromise deed so arrived at between the parties is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2 and execution of the same as also the contents thereof have also been acknowledged by respondents No. 2 to 4.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has also very fairly submitted that the respondent-State has no objection in case petition is allowed and FIR in issue as well as ensuing criminal proceedings are quashed and set aside.

5. Accordingly, in view of the above, this petition is allowed and private Criminal Complaint No. 492/2013, titled as Karim Baksh Vs. Liyakat Ali and others, under Sections 452, 451, 324, 323, 447, 427, 149, 147, 148, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Amb, District Una, H.P. is quashed and set aside, taking into consideration the compromise entered between the complainants and accused and statements to this effect made by respondents No. 2 to 4 in this Court. The compromise deed Annexure P-2 as well as statements of the complainants made today in the Court shall form part of the judgment. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge June 24, 2022

(bhupender)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top