Allowed

Arun Thakur and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jun 2022CRMMO/131/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR under IPC Sections 323, 147, and 149 regarding a brawl. The court cited the victim's in-court statement confirming the dispute was settled and the State's consent.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of FIR No. 96 of 2017 and all ensuing criminal proceedings pending in the Court of ACJM, Kasauli.

Arun Thakur and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

ON THE 1^st DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL

¶5

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No. 131 OF 2022

¶6

Between:-

¶7

1. ARUN THAKUR SON OF SH. SHEER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMBOTA, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGED 28 YEARS.

¶8

2. RAMAN SON OF SH. RAJENDER THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMBOTA, TAKSAL, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGED 29 YEARS.

¶9

3. DEVINDER SINGH SON OF SH. RAJENDER THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMBOTA, TAKSAL, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGED 31 YEARS.

¶10

4. MEHUL DUTT SON OF SH. JEET RAM, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 6, TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH, AGED 29 YEARS.

¶11

5. PANKAJ SON OF SH. MEHAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMBOTA, TAKSAL, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH AGED 28 YEARS.

¶12

……….PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY MR. JYOTIRMAY BHATT, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND

¶16

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. 2. ANIL SHARMA SON OF SH. RAJENDER KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAGGER MOHHAL AMBOTA, TAKSAL, TEHSIL KASAULI, DISTRICT SOLAN, HIMACHAL PRADESH. 3. JAIVEER SON OF SH. HUKUM SINGH RANA, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 920 NEAR HARYANA CHECK POST, SHIMLA ROAD, KALKA, DISTRICT PANCHKULA, HARYANA.

¶17

.…….RESPONDENTS

¶18

(M/S SUMESH RAJ, DINESH THAKUR AND SANJEEV SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS WITH MR. AMIT KUMAR DHUMAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL AND MR. MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENEAL FOR R-1. MS. ANUBHUTI SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND 3)

¶19

___________________________________________________________

¶20

Whether approved for reporting:

¶21

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court

¶22

passed the following:-

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the

¶25

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 96 of 2017, dated 14.10.2017, registered under Sections 323 and 147, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan,

¶26

¶27

H.P. as well as ensuing criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned ACJM, Court No. 1, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P.

¶28

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and learned Additional Advocate General.

¶29

Complainant/Respondent No. 2 and the

¶30

victim/respondent No. 3 are present in person in the Court. The victim has stated in the open Court that he has no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed in view of the fact that now the matter stands amicably settled between the parties. Statement of the complainant, namely, Sh. Anil Sharma, who has been identified by his Counsel, Ms. Anubhuti Sharma, Advocate, to this effect has been recorded in the Court wherein he has stated that he has entered into a compromise with the petitioners/accused as the issue which led to registration of the FIR in question has been amicably settled between them. He has further stated that he is not interested in pursuing further the FIR No. 96 of 2017, dated 14.10.2017, registered under Sections 323 and 147, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. as well as ensuing criminal proceedings pending in the Court of learned ACJM,

¶31

¶32

Court No. 1, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. A copy of compromise so arrived at between the parties is appended with the petition as Annexure P/1 and execution of the same as also the contents thereof have also been acknowledged by the complainant/ respondent No. 2. He has also acknowledged his signatures on Compromise Deed Annexure P/1.

¶33

Learned Additional Advocate General has also very fairly submitted that the respondent-State has no objection in case petition is allowed and FIR as well as consequential criminal proceedings, if any, pending trial, are quashed and set aside.

¶34

Accordingly, in view of above, this petition is allowed and FIR No. 96 of 2017, dated 14.10.2017, registered under Sections 323 and 147, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. as well as ensuing criminal proceedings, pending in the Court of learned ACJM, Court No. 1, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. are ordered to be quashed and set aside, taking into consideration the compromise entered between the complainant i.e. respondent No. 2 and the accused i.e. present petitioners and statement to this effect, made by respondent No. 2, namely, Sh.

¶35

¶36

Anil Sharma, in the Court, which shall form part of the judgment.

¶37

Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms, so

¶38

also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶39

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶40

June 01, 2022 (narender)

Arun Thakur and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Thakur and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Ashutosh Bahuguna Vs Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and Others

Vikrant Thakur Vs State of Hp

Manjula Gupta Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp Vs Kuku Alias Gafurdeen

Guddi Devi Vs Kishori Lal

Mohammad Iqbal Vs State of Hp and Ors.