Allowed¶36

Raj Kumar Saini and Others v. State of Hp and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Apr 2025CRMMO/214/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR on compromise/settlement; S. 528 BNSS inherent jurisdiction; FIR No. 70/2024, PS Kala Amb, Sirmaur; offences under S. 354-D read with S. 34 IPC; complainant's affidavit of compromise and retraction; continuation of proceedings abuse of process of law; peace in society rationale; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Virender Singh, J.; Cr. MMO No. 214 of 2025; decided 2.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

FIR No. 70 of 2024 (FIR in question) quashed; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of ¶36

Raj Kumar Saini and Others Vs State of Hp and Anr. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 214 of 2025 Decided on : 2.4.2025

¶4

Raj Kumar Saini & anr.

…Petitioners

Versus

State of H.P. & anr.

…Respondents

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

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shashi Bhushan, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.G., for respondent No. 1.

¶13

Mr. Shivang Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.

¶14

Virender Singh, Judge (oral)

¶15

The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.N.S.S.) for quashing of FIR No. 70 of 2024, dated 9.5.2024, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), under Section 354-D, read with Section 34 of the Indian

¶16

¶17

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Kala Amb, District Sirmaur, H.P.

¶18

Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and respondent No. 2.

¶19

Respondent No. 2 has sworn an affidavit, Annexure P-3, to the effect that she has compromised the matter with the petitioners.

¶20

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

¶21

When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the status report, disclosing therein, the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion and investigation in the case is still going on.

¶22

Respondent No. 2, is the person, who had put criminal machinery into motion by making statement under Section 173 of BNSS, before the Police, upon which, the FIR was registered. She has deposed that she had lodged the FIR due to pressure of work,

¶23

¶24

however, no such incident had taken place. As such,

¶25

she has compromised the matter with the petitioners.

¶26

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

¶27

Heard.

¶28

From the facts, as mentioned in the petition, as well as, the factual position, as narrated in the status report, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been compromised, between the parties.

¶29

The person, i.e. respondent No. 2, who had put the criminal machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR in question, when, appeared before this Court, has stated that the matter has been compromised between her and the petitioners, as she had lodged the FIR in question, due to pressure and no such incident had ever taken place.

¶30

In view of the affidavit, sworn by respondent No. 2, which bears her signatures, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and

¶31

has specifically stated that she has no objection, in

¶32

¶33

case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question is quashed.

¶34

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.2 have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.

¶35