The High Court quashed the FIR and proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323, and 504 IPC after the parties mutually settled their disputes and the complainant stated she had no objection to the quashing.
FIR No. 140 of 2022 and consequential proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 715 of 2024
Decided on : 4.11.2024
Sanjeev Kumar & others
…Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & anr
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Abhinav Ghabroo, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Yash Pal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral)
The petitioners have filed the present petition, under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for seeking quashing of the FIR No. 140 of 2022, dated 14.10.2022, (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the FIR in question’), under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504
2
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) as well as the consequential proceedings, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kangra, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).
Out of this wedlock, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2, have been blessed with a daughter.
3
their interse dispute, including dissolution of marriage. The terms and conditions of the compromise, have been reduced into writing.
No. 1, they have divorced each other and she does not want to proceed further with the matter. She has further stated that she has
4
no objection, in case the present petition is allowed and FIR in question and the consequential proceedings, are ordered to be quashed.
5
and respondent No. 2 have decided to part their ways by settling all the interse disputes, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in questions, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.
6
today, as well as, the compromise, Annexure P-3 be read as part of
the judgment.
of.
(Virender Singh) Judge
November 4, 2011 Kalpana
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed in light of a mutual compromise between the parties?
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sanjeev Kumar & others
State of H.P. & anr
Virender Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
