Allowed

Sanju v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Jun 2024CRMMO/45/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of an FIR for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The parties confirmed the compromise before the Court, which quashed the FIR and consequent criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 116 of 2022 and consequent criminal proceedings against petitioner-accused quashed.

Sanju Vs State of Hp and Others — Quashing and FIR | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MMO No. 45 of 2024 Date of Decision: 13^th June, 2024

Sanju

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & ors.

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to 3	: Mr. Ajeet Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
For Respondent No.4 & 5	: Mr. Virender Kumar Advocate.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla,Judge (oral)

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the F.I.R. No. 116 of 2022 dated 12.10.2022, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and consequent proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R based on compromise effected between the parties.

¶13

It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties voluntarily and in view of the compromise, the FIR be quashed.

¶14

The statement of the informant, injured and the accused were recorded on 09.04.2024, in which, they had stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties voluntarily and they have no objection, in case, the FIR No.116 of 2022 is ordered to be quashed.

¶15

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

¶16

This Court had quashed the F.I.R. registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC in Sushant vs State of H.P. 2023 HLC 531, Vikas Huda vs. State of H.P. 2023 STPL 3009, Kulwidner Singh vs Ankush Kumar 2023 HLR384 and Nishant vs. State 2022 Suppl. Law Cases 45 and others.

¶17

6 Therefore, in view of these precedents, the present petition is allowed and F.I.R. No. 116 of 2022 dated 12.10.2022, registered at Police Station Gagret, District Una, H.P. for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC is quashed. Consequent to the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereto, are also quashed.

¶18

Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any.

¶19

Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy but if required, may verify passing of the order from Website of the High Court.

¶20

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶21

13^th June, 2024 (saurav pathania)

Sanju v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ved Parkash Vs State of Hp

Suresh Sood Vs Anita

Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors.

Budhi Ram Vs Kali Ram

Sushil Kumar and Another Vs Anita Kumari

Mansa Ram Vs Paras Ram