Allowed

Devender Habbi and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Nov 2024CRMMO/93/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the petition for quashing an FIR and related proceedings. The court held that since a valid compromise was reached by parties seeking harmony, continuing criminal prosecution would be an abuse of process and no useful purpose would be served by keeping proceedings alive.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 82 of 2014 and resultant proceedings pending before the trial Court were quashed.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 93 of 2024

¶4

Decided on : 7.11.2024

¶5

Devender Habbi & ors.

…Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. & ors.

…Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?

¶12

¶13

For the Petitioners : Mr. Naresh Kumar Tomar, Advocate.

¶14

For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Ranjana Patial, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3-State.

¶15

Ms. Madhurika Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.

¶16

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

¶17

The petitioners have filed the present petition,

¶18

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

¶19

¶20

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.) for quashing of FIR No. 82 of 2014, dated 1.10.2014, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 341, 354, 427, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Police Station, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P., as well as, the resultant proceedings thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No. 6/2 of 2015, titled as ‘State of H.P. vs. Devender Habbi & others’.

¶21

After registration of the FIR, on statement of respondent No. 4, criminal machinery swung into motion. After investigation, the police has submitted its report under Section 173 (2) of Cr. P.C., which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court.

¶22

It is also the case of the parties that now the matter has been compromised, in pursuance of compromise, Annexure P-2, as the parties belong to

¶23

¶24

the same area and want to live with harmony, in future.

¶25

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.

¶26

When put to notice, respondents-State has filed status report, disclosing therein the factual position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion.

¶27

It is the further case of respondentsState 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

The person who has put criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, i.e. respondent No. 4 has appeared in Court on 20.4.2024 and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, she has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the

¶29

¶30

compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations between

¶31

her and the petitioners, as they are residents of the same area.

¶32

Lastly, respondent No. 4, in unequivocal

¶33

terms, has deposed that she does not want to proceed further with the matter.

¶34

Similar type of statements have also been made by the petitioners.

¶35

Heard.

¶36

Complainant/respondent No. 4 has

¶37

categorically stated, in her statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties,

¶38

in order to live an happy and peaceful life in future.

¶39

In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2,

¶40

which bears the signatures of petitioners and respondent No. 4, respondent No. 4 does not want to proceed further with the case and has no objection, in

¶41

case, the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings

¶42

resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial

¶43

¶44

Court, are quashed and the present petition is allowed.

¶45

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-2, should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive.

¶46

The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioners and respondent No. 4, 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. 4, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶47

Acceptance of the compromise will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote

¶48

¶49

such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it.

¶50

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.

¶51

The statements of the parties and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment.

¶52

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

¶53

(Virender Singh) Judge

¶54

November 7, 2024 Kalpana

Devender Habbi and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devender Habbi and Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Singh Verma Vs Chander Shekhar Sood

Ravinder Singh Verma Vs Chander Kant Sood

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Another

State of Hp and Another Vs Dc Chandel

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Nitika Prashar and others Vs State of Hp and others