Allowed

Julfi Ram v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Mar 2024CRMMO/35/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and resultant proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of compromise between parties, noting that similar proceedings against a co-accused had already been quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 90 of 2020 dated 01.06.2020 and resultant proceedings pending in the trial Court were quashed qua the petitioner Julfi Ram.

Julfi Ram Vs State of Hp and Another — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

Cr.MMO No. 35 of 2024

¶3

Decided on: 1^st March, 2024

¶4

Julfi Ram .......Petitioner.

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P and another ...Respondents

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the petitioner:	Mr. Neel Advocate.	Ka	mal	Shar	ma,
For the respondents:	Ms. Leena respondent N	Guleri o.1.	a, Dy.	A.G.	for
	Ms. Shivani, Shailja Kum respondent N	Adv ari, o.2.	ocate Advo	vice cate	Ms. for

¶11

Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)

¶12

Petitioner-Julfi Ram has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’), with a prayer to quash FIR No. 90 of 2020 dated 01.06.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR in question’), under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) read with Sections 27 and 29 of the Indian Arms Act, registered with Police

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’) being Police Challan No. 26/2020, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Bheem Singh and others.

¶16

The relief of quashing has been sought on the ground that the matter has now been compromised between the parties.

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that on the statement of respondent No.2 Mahesh Kumar, FIR in question was registered, in which, the police has investigated the matter and submitted the report under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. The police has submitted the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C under Section 29 of the Arms Act against petitioner Julfi Ram and his son Satish Kumar, whereas, report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C has been submitted against accused Bhim Singh @ Bheemu under Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 307 IPC.

¶18

¶19

The main ground, upon which, the relief has been sought is that during the pendency of the case before the learned trial Court, the matter has been compromised with respondent No.2. In order to substantiate the said fact, the petitioner has placed on record compromise Annexure P-3.

¶20

When put to notice, respondent No.1-State, has filed the reply, in which, factual position with regard to the registration of FIR, as well as, investigation of the case by the police and submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., has been mentioned. Apart-from this, it has been submitted that in this case, charges have been framed and the case has now been fixed for prosecution evidence.

¶21

Elaborating its stand, it has been stated that out of 36 witnesses, two witnesses have been examined and now the case is fixed on 11.03.2024 and 12.03.2024 for PWs.

¶22

On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition, discarding the compromise.

¶23

It is not out of place to mention here that the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Cr.MMO No. 468 of 2023 titled as Satish Kumar vs. State of H.P and others , decided on 26.09.2023, petition under Section 482

¶24

¶25

Cr.P.C, moved by another accused in this case, who is none other, but the real son of the petitioner, which has been allowed, by quashing the FIR, as well as, resultant proceedings thereto pending against him, before the learned trial Court, on the basis of compromise.

¶26

The person, who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, has been impleaded, in the present case, as respondent No.2.

¶27

Respondent No.2, Mahesh Kumar, when appeared before this Court has made statement, on oath, disclosing therein that on his statement, FIR in question was registered, in which, police has investigated the matter and submitted the report under Section 173(2), Cr.P.C, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. He, in unequivocal terms, has stated that the compromise Annexure P-3 has been executed between him and petitioner, upon which, he has put his signatures voluntarily.

¶28

Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner.

¶29

Heard.

¶30

¶31

Admittedly, in this case, FIR was registered against three persons namely, petitioner Julfi Ram, Satish Kumar and Bhim Singh @ Bhimu. Admittedly, the FIR in question, as well as, resultant proceedings thereto have already been quashed against co-accused Satish Kumar, who is none other, but, the son of the petitioner in Cr.MMO No. 468 of 2023. In such situation, there is no legal hesitation for this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of compromise.

¶32

Partial quashing of FIR is permissible under the law. While holding so, the view of this Court is being guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lovely Salhotra and another vs. State NCT of Delhi and another, 2017 SCC online SC 636 . The relevant para-4 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:-

¶33

“4. We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants-herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants-herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent

¶34

¶35

No.2-herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against coaccused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima-facie.”

¶36

Since, the matter has been compromised between the parties, as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings alive against the petitioner, especially, in view of the fact that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing, filed by one of the co-accused, has already been allowed, by this Court, vide order dated 26.09.2023.

¶37

In view of the compromise, the chances are not so bright that respondent No.2 will depose against the petitioner. 17. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 90 of 2020 dated 01.06.2020, registered with Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., as well as, resultant proceedings thereto, pending in the learned trial Court, bearing Police Challan No. 26/2020, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Bheem Singh and others, qua the petitioner Julfi Ram, are ordered to be quashed.

¶38

¶39