Shivani Vs State of Hp and Another

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Ms. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1/State. : Ms. Himani Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶10

Rakesh Kainthla,Judge

¶11

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No. 55 of 2019, dated 09.07.2019, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 336 and 201 of IPC registered at Police Station in Khundian, District Kangra, H.P. and consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R based on compromise effected between the parties.

¶12

It has been asserted that the parties are in close relation, who are residing in the same locality. They have settled the matter to

¶13

_______________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

¶14

2

¶15

2024:HHC:8496

¶16

maintain the cordial relations between them. Hence, the present petition.

¶17

Statement of the father of victim Sivansh was recorded on 24.07.2024 in which he stated that the matter had been compromised between the parties voluntarily without any influence from any person and he has no objection, in case the FIR lodged against the petitioner/accused is ordered to be quashed based on the compromise.

¶18

The birth certificate of Master Shivansh has been placed on record, which shows that he is aged 16 years. This fact was verified by the State. Hence, the father of minor is competent to compromise the matter on his behalf.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully.

¶20

Perusal of the F.I.R. shows that birthday of the victim was being solemnized. The petitioner/accused tried to burst the balloon with the help of a shaving blade and inadvertently caused injuries on the hand of the victim with the blade. This incident clearly shows that it was not a deliberate act but purely sudden accident during birthday celebration. This aspect is also to be considered while quashing the F.I.R.

¶21

In the present case, the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 336 and 201 of IPC. This Court

¶22

3

¶23

2024:HHC:8496

¶24

had already quashed the F.I.R. under Section 336 of IPC, inter alia, in Naryan Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others 2022 STPL 9676 HP and Rajeev Kumar vs State of H.P. & another 2019(1) Shim.LC22. Similarly, this Court has also quashed the F.I.R. under Section 324 of IPC in Ram Krishan alias Ramu vs. State of H.P.& others Latest HLJ 2021(2)(HP) 1327, Amir Hussain vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2022(1)Him.L.R.195, Braham Dass & others vs. State of H.P & others 2022(1) Him.L.R.466, Inderjeet Singh & others vs State of H.P. & others 2022(2)Him.LR.1217, Raj Kumar @ Raj & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Latest HLJ 2022(HP)(1) 759 and Rukam Deen Vs State of Himachal Pradesh 2023(1) Him L.R. (HC) 616 based on the compromise. These judgments are binding on this Court.

¶25

8. Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 55 of 2019, dated 09.07.2019, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 324, 336 and 201 of IPC, registered at Police Station Khundian, District Kangra, H.P. is ordered to be quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also ordered to be quashed.

¶26