Surjeet Singh Vs State of Hp and Anr.

For the petitioners : Mr. Vishal Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Addl. AGs, for respondent No. 1-State. None for respondent No. 2.

¶10

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

¶11

Petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No. 0043/2019, dated 27.2.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., under Section 435 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to

¶12

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶13

2

¶14

( 2024:HHC:11739 )

¶15

as the ‘IPC’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

¶16

The relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No. 2.

¶17

According to the petitioners, on the statement of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them.

¶18

After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.

¶19

According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the aforesaid case, in order to maintain their future cordial relations, they have compromised the matter with respondent No.2.

¶20

The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are Annexure P-2.

¶21

3 ( 2024:HHC:11739 )

¶22

On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has

¶23

been made that the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, by allowing the petition.

¶24

When put to notice, respondent No.1-State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case.

¶25

Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, has put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before

¶26

this Court on 17.7.204 and deposed that in order to maintain their cordial relations, the matter has been settled between him and the petitioners, vide compromise Annexure P-2. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for.

¶27

Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath.

¶28

4 ( 2024:HHC:11739 )

¶29

Heard.

¶30

The person, who has put the criminal machinery into motion is respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, while appearing, before this Court, has categorically deposed that in order to maintain their future cordial relations the matter has been compromised between the parties.

¶31

The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society. When, the petitioners and respondent No.2 have buried all the disputes by compromising the matter, then, permitting the proceedings to continue, before the learned trial Court, would be nothing, but, abuse of the process of law.

¶32

Even otherwise, acceptance of the compromise, by this Court, will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, which, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote for the decision of some other serious matters, pending before it.

¶33