Allowed

Mohd. Akram and Ors. v. Mehboob Akhtar and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Sept 2022CRMMO/767/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash an FIR and consequent proceedings based on a valid compromise deed recorded before it. The court found the parties belong to the same community, had settled disputes amicably, and the offences were personal in nature, making it a fit case for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

FIR No 133/2018 dated 03.06.2018 under Sections 324, 341, 323, 427, 336, 147, 148, 149 and 201 IPC and consequent proceedings in Case No. 199/2018 are quashed.

Mohd. Akram and Ors. Vs Mehboob Akhtar and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶4

ON THE 5^th. DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA

¶7

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 Cr.P.C No. 767 of 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

1. SH. MOHD. AKRAM,AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶10

2. SH. MOHD IRSHAD,AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶11

3. MUMTAZ MOHD., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶12

ALL SON OF SH. SHARIF MOHD.

¶13

4. SH. SHARIF MOHD., AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.

¶14

5. SH. REHMAT ALI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.

¶15

BOTH S/O SH. RAMJAN MOHD.

¶16

6. SMT. HEENA, W/O SH. MOHD. AKRAM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

¶17

7. SMT. SULTANA BIBI @ SHALU, W/O SH. MUMTAZ MOHD., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶18

8. SMT. SHABINA BIBI, W/O SH. MOHD. IRSHAD, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.

¶19

9. SMT. SALMA BIBI, W/O SH. REHMAT ALI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.

¶20

¶21

ALL THE R/O VILLAGE DUGRAIN, PO KANAID, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶22

…..PETITIONERS

¶23

( BY MR. RAVINDER SINGH JASWAL, ADVOCATE )

¶24

AND

¶25

1. SH. MEHBOOB AKHTAR, S/O SH. BAHSIR, MOHD., R/O VILLAGE DUGRAIN, PO KANAID, TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶26

2. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶27

……………….RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY MR. INDERJEET SINGH NARWAL, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1;

¶29

MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. NARENDER THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL AND MR. MANOJ BAGGA, ASSISTANT ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-2)

¶30

This petition coming on for order, the Court passed

¶31

the following:-

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

By way of this petition, a prayer has been made to quash FIR No 133/2018, dated 03.06.2018, under Sections 324, 341, 323, 427, 336, 147, 148, 149 and 201 of Indian Penal Code,

¶34

¶35

registered at Police Station Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. and consequent proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class-1, Sunderangar, District Mandi, H.P., in case No. 199/2018, titled as State of H.P Vs. Mohd. Akram and ors. On the comprise that parties have entered into a compromise and have decided to live in peace. A copy of compromise deed has placed on record as Annexure P-2.

¶36

All the parties i.e. petitioners and respondent No. 1 presented themselves before this Court today in person. Separate statements of respondent No.1, Sh. Mehboob Akhtar and petitioner No.4, Sh. Sharif Mohd. have been recorded. Both of them have stated that they had cordial relations even prior to the incident of 03.06.2018. On said date, a sudden fight took place as a result of some misunderstanding between the parties. Otherwise, both the parties belong to same community and are residents of the same area. They participate together in festivities and common functions. After the incident, the relations remained strained for some time but with the intervention of the respectable members of the society, everything was patched up. Now, the parties are residing amicably again and joining each other in

¶37

¶38

common festivities. They have buried all their past disputes. Petitioner No. 4 has also stated that he is making statement on behalf of other petitioners.

¶39

I have perused the terms of Annexure P-2, compromise deed executed on 04.06.2022 between the parties. The terms of the compromise deed are in tune with the statements made by the parties today before the Court as also the averments made in the petition. These terms do not suggest that they are unlawful, therefore, there is no legal impediment in granting the prayer of the petitioners.

¶40

Petitioners have shown their sincere and honest resolve to live in peace by burying all their past disputes. It has come on record that the parties belong to the same community, are residents of the same area and have been participating in common functions and festivities. In this view of the matter, this Court finds that this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. The object of every legal system is to ultimately maintain peace and harmony in the people of its society. The offences involved in the case in hand are of personal nature. In case, the parties are allowed to settle

¶41

¶42

their disputes by compromise, it is not going to harm or affect the interest of society at large. State has not filed any reply and has no serious objection in granting the prayer in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶43

In light of above discussion, the instant petition is allowed. FIR No 133/2018, dated 03.06.2018, under Sections 324, 341, 323, 427, 336s, 147, 148, 149 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sundernagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. and consequent proceedings pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class-1, Sunderangar, District Mandi, H.P. in case No. 199/2018, titled as State of H.P Vs. Mohd. Akram and ors., are ordered to be quashed.

¶44

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶45

( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge 5^th September, 2022 (sushma)

Mohd. Akram and Ors. v. Mehboob Akhtar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Akram and Ors. v. Mehboob Akhtar and Anr.

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

Hpseb Supervisory Accounts Services Association through Its President Vs Manoj Kumar

Mohinder Singh Vs Sandeep Kumar and Anr.

Nasib Chand Vs Sandeep Kumar and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz Gic Vs Shakuntala Devi

Brij Lal Vs R.P. Verma and Another

Sahil @ Chhotu and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.