Allowed

Akshat Sharma and Another v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jul 2021CRMMO/275/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed FIR No. 263 of 2013 registered for assault. The court allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC, noting that the parties had compromised the matter eight years prior and both sides now assured peace and harmony.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed and FIR No. 263 of 2013, dated 12.12.2013, is quashed with consequent proceedings closed.

Akshat Sharma and Another Vs State of Hp and Another — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

	Cr.MMO No.	275 of 2021
	Reserved on:	26.06-2021
	Date of Decision:	05-07-2021
Akshat Sharma and another		...Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P and another ...Respondents

¶6

Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ NO

¶9

__________________________________________________________________

¶10

For the petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Gautam, Advocate

¶11

For the respondents: Mr. Ram Lal Thakur Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Rajat Chauhan Law Officer for respondent No.1. Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶12

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

¶13

FIR	Dated	Police Station	Sections
No.
263	12.12.2013	Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P,.	341, 323,324 read with Section 34 of IPC

¶14

Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

¶15

On 12.12.2013, the complainant, respondent No.2 herein, informed

¶16

the above mentioned police that that after the school time was over, he was standing outside the gate. At that time, three boys, namely, Amandeep A-1, Akshat Sharma A- 2 and Anil Kumar came there and said that why was he abusing them. After that they caught hold of him and gave beatings and also inflicted incised wound by something, which appeared to be knife. Due to which, blood started oozing out of the

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

injuries. Based on this information, the police registered the FIR mentioned above. Injured was taken to hospital for medical examination, where the doctor opined the injury to be inflected by a sharp edged weapon. After that, the police completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against two persons Amandeep and Akshat Sharma.

¶20

After that on 31.12.2013, Officer-in-charge of the aforesaid police station launched prosecution by filing report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, in the concerned Court.

¶21

However, a day prior to that i.e. 30.12.2013, the accused persons and the complainant entered into a written compromise, which is Annexure P-2 and forms part of the record. As per this compromise, scuffle had taken place due to misunderstanding, but the same was compromised. It was also mentioned that on account of compromise, the complainant will withdraw the complaint.

¶22

Seeking quashing of the said FIR, both the accused have come up before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C

¶23

On 26.6.2021, the complainant appeared before this Court and made statement on oath that aforesaid FIR be quashed. The said statement forms part of the record. On the same day, even the accused persons made statement assuring not to intimidate, threat or give beatings to the complainant.

¶24

The parties had compromised the matter on 30.12.2013, in which they have decided to live in peace and harmony. After a gap of eight years, the complainant made statement on oath 26.06.2021, and did not complain of any intimidation, threat or has any issue with the accused. Apart from that, even the accused persons again made a statement on oath and assured not to intimidate, threat or give beatings to the complainant.

¶25

¶26

Given the nature of offence and the fact that at that time, the accused persons were also very young boys, there is no justification to continue with the criminal proceedings, which would only hamper the career of the accused persons. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No.263 of 2013, dated 12.12.2013, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC, in Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, is quashed and consequent proceedings also closed.

¶27

The petition is allowed.

¶28

Anoop Chitkara, Judge

¶29

05 July, 2021 ( R.Atal )

Akshat Sharma and Another v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshat Sharma and Another v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Alias Sonu Vs State of Hp

Nikka Ram Vs State of Hp

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Hp

Pawan Kumar and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Karan Begra and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Bodh Raj Thakur Vs State of Hp and Anr.