Ritika Bharmoria Vs State of Hp and Another

For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Dy. A.G., for respondent No. 1.

¶14

Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶15

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

¶16

The petitioner has filed the present petition,

¶17

under Section 528 read with Section 359 of the

¶18

2

¶19

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

¶20

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 178 of 2020, dated 19.12.2020, under Sections 66(E) and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act and Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) , registered with Police Station, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharampur, District Mandi, HP (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’).

¶21

Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 2, as they belong to same area and want to live in peace and harmony, in future.

¶22

The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-3.

¶23

3

¶24

On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made.

¶25

When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein the factual position, about the

¶26

manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

¶27

It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.

¶28

Today, the person who has put the criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, she has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to

¶29

4

¶30

maintain cordial relations between her and the petitioner, as they are residents of the same area.

¶31

Lastly, respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter and has stated that she has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

¶32

Similar type of statement has also been made

¶33

by the petitioner.

¶34

Heard.

¶35

Complainant/respondent No. 2 has

¶36

categorically stated, in her statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between them.

¶37

In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-3,

¶38

which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically

¶39

5

¶40

stated that she has no objection, in case, the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed and the present petition is allowed.

¶41

Moreover, when, the parties have settled the dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3, should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive.

¶42

The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 2, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶43

Acceptance of the compromise will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as,

¶44

6

¶45

the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it.

¶46

Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings consequent thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed.

¶47

The statements, so recorded today and the compromise, Annexure P-3, be read as part of the judgment.

¶48

The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶49

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶50

November 11, 2024 Kalpana

Ritika Bharmoria v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritika Bharmoria v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitika Prashar and others Vs State of Hp and others

Hitesh Gandhi Vs Ed

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of H.P

Paras Vs State of Hp and Anr.

Partap Singh Thakur Vs Baldev Singh Bhandari

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs Ramesh Chand and Others