Partly allowed

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Nov 2023CRMMO/1009/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of H.P. disposed of two separate applications. In Cr.MMO No. 1009/2023, it allowed an application to implead the informant as a respondent. In Cr.MP No. 4106/2023, it quashed the FIR following a victim compromise, relying on specific precedents.

What did the court decide?

Raj Pal impleaded as respondent No. 3; FIR No. 135 and consequent proceedings ordered to be quashed.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and another

¶2

Cr.MMO No. 1009 of 2023

¶3

01.11.2023 Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.

¶5

Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶6

Cr.MP No. 4106 of 2023

¶7

The file taken up, as an application for

¶8

impleading Raj Pal as party respondent has been filed.

¶9

Notice. Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respective respondents.

¶10

No reply is to be filed and it has been stated that they have no objection in case the application is allowed. In view of this, as well as the fact that the proposed respondent was the informant, on whose statement the FIR was registered and is a necessary party, the application is allowed and Raj Pal is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.-3.

¶11

Application stands disposed of.

¶12

Cr.MMO No. 1009 of 2023

¶13

Amended memo of parties is taken on record. The statement of informant has been recorded

¶14

in which he stated that he had entered into a compromise with the accused. The compromise (Annexure P-2) bears

¶15

his signatures. The compromise was effected by him voluntarily and in view of the compromise, he does not want to proceed further with the FIR.

¶16

Heard.

¶17

The FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. This Court had permitted the compounding of the FIR registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC in Sushant versus State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2023 HP(1) 531, Suraj Chaudhary versus State of H.P 2022 (3) ACC 353, Vikas Hooda versus State of H.P, 2023 STPL 3009, Avinash Singh Rana versus State of H.P 2023 STPL 3181 . Hence, in view of these precedents, the petition is allowed and FIR No.135 registered in PS Barsar, District Hamirpur on 08.12.2015 and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are ordered to be quashed in view of the compromise. A copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court for information.

¶18

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶19

November 01, 2023 (saurav pathania)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himachal Wakf Board Vs Sudershan Kumar

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Ram Dass Vs Land Acquisition Collector-Cum-Competent Authority Under NHAI and Another

Kuldeep Kumar Vs Reeta Rani

Balkrishan and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Parmjit Singh Vs the State of Hp