Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18185
Decided on: 12.06.2023
For the petitioners:
Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate.
For the respondents:
Mr. B. N. Sharma, Addl. A.G., for respondent No.1.
Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 285, 34 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 -- Compromise quashing of FIR – Petitioners/ accused had put the scrap articles on fire, which had caused damage to the property of complainant -- Nature of dispute between the parties is by and large private in nature -- Final outcome of prosecution against the petitioners either way is not going to harm the interest of society at large -- Both sides belong to the same area and have their business premises nearby – Petition allowed, FIR u/s 285 and 34 of IPC alongwith consequent criminal proceedings quashed.
(Para 3, 6-9)
***
SATYEN VAIDYA, J. (ORAL) –
By way of instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash FIR No. 118 of 2019 dated 17.4.2019, under Sections 285 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. alongwith consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
2. It is averred that the parties have arrived at a compromise and in view of the compromise, respondent No.2/ complainant does not want to further prosecute the petitioners/accused.
3. On 17.4.2019, respondent No.2 reported at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. that the petitioners/ accused were dealing in scrap and were storing the scrap articles near to his business premises. The petitioners/ accused had put the scrap articles on fire on 15.4.2019, which had caused damage to the property of complainant.
4. Respondent No.2/complainant appeared before this Court on 18.5.2023. His statement on oath was recorded. Respondent No.2 stated that he had narrated the facts to the police vide FIR No. 118 of 2019 on some assumption and later he had realized that the assumption on which the FIR was lodged, probably was not correct. He further stated that he knew the petitioners personally, as they belong to same area. Respondent No.2 also verified the contents of written compromise, Annexure P-2, placed on record. On the basis of such compromise, he deposed that he had no objection in case FIR No. 118 of 2019 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.
5. Petitioners were also present in the Court on the same date and their statement was also recorded. Petitioners also verified the contents of compromise, Annexure P-2, having been executed between them and respondent No.2. Petitioners undertook to abide by the terms of the compromise.
6. The nature of dispute between the parties is by and large private in nature. The final outcome of prosecution against the petitioners either way is not going to harm the interest of society at large. It is more than settled now that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court in appropriate cases can quash the criminal proceedings on the basis of a compromise between the parties, provided involvement of heinous offences is not there.
7. The parties have come forward for bringing to an end of their inter-se dispute on the basis of an amicable settlement. Their purpose is to maintain peace and harmony. Both sides belong to the same area and have their business premises nearby.
8. The object of every civilized society is to secure peace and harmony amongst its subjects. The prayer made in the petition, if allowed, will definitely serve the above purpose and object.
9. In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 118 of 2019 dated 17.4.2019, under Sections 285 and 34 of IPC, registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. alongwith consequent criminal proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.
Petition allowed.
********