ANKIT VERMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.163/2019 dated 8.7.2019 under Sections 353 and 332 of Indian Penal Code ( for short 'IPC'), and Section 3 of the Medicare Service Persons and Medicare Service Institution(Violence and Damage of Property) Act, registered with Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur H.P., as well as consequent proceedings pending adjudication in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-­4).

(2.) Averments contained in the petition, which is duly r to supported by an affidavit, reveals that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.3 (hereinafter 'complainant') namely, Sh. Surender Nadda, who alleged that on the date of alleged incident when he was on emergency duty at Trauma Centre, Bilaspur, petitioner herein, who was attendant of his mother Smt. Veena Devi, not only misbehaved, but also made an attempt to manhandle him by pulling him from his collar. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the competent Court of law and same is pending adjudication. However, fact remains that before aforesaid proceedings could be taken to its logical end in the criminal proceedings initiated at the behest of the complainant, parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them by way of compromise, as is evident from compromise deed (Annexure P-­4).

(3.) On 24.12.2019, this Court while issuing notice to the respondents, deemed it expedient to summon both parties to the Court, especially respondent No.3 at whose instance FIR, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged, so that factum with regard to compromise, if any, inter se parties could be ascertained. Pursuant to aforesaid order dated 24.12.2019, parties have come present in Court. Respondent No.3/complainant namely, Sh. Surender Kumar Nadda, on oath stated before this Court that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into the compromise with the petitioner, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and as such, he shall have no objection in case prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for quashment of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, is accepted. His statement is taken on record.