BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 12, dated 22.1.2020 under Ss. 451, 354, 354-A, 354-B and 323 IPC registered at Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequent proceedings in case titled State vs. Babu Ram, pending before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh arising out of aforesaid FIR, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties (Annexure P-3).

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent NO.4, who alleged that on 21.1.2020, petitioner telephonically called her first at 5.30 pm, then at 7.30 pm and at 10.22 pm respectively, to enquire whether her husband has come back home and she told the petitioner to call on the mobile number of her husband. Petitioner instead of calling the husband, told her that he is coming to her house and thereafter, complainant switched off her husband's mobile phone. She alleged that the petitioner came to her house at 10.40 pm and kicked the doors of her house. Complainant alleged that she called her husband on mobile and during this period, her father-in-law came out. Complainant alleged that the petitioner behaved indecently and tried to outrage her modesty. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be registered against the petitioner. though after completion of investigation, Challan stands filed in the competent Court of law but the fact remains that before the same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner and respondent No4. have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and as such, joint prayer for quashing of FIR as also consequent proceedings has been made.

(3.) On 15.10.2020, this Court, while issuing notice to the respondents, deemed it necessary to cause presence of respondent No.4, so that factum with regard to compromise, if any, inter se parties, could be verified. Besides above, this Court also directed learned Additional Advocate General to verify the factum with regard to compromise, if any, arrived at inter se the parties. Pursuant to order dated 15.10.2020, respondent No.4/complainant has come present in the Court who is duly represented by Mr. Lal Singh Mehta, Advocate. Complainant states on oath before this Court that she of her own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise (Annexure P-3), whereby both the parties have amicably resolved the dispute inter-se them. She further states that she does not wish to prosecute further the FIR lodged at her behest and shall have no objection, in case prayer made in the petition for quashing of FIR in question is accepted. Her statement made on oath is taken on record.