KARTIK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused (petitioners herein), after compromising the entire matter with the complainant (respondent No. 2 herein), have come up before this Court under Section 482 CrPC, by invoking inherent powers of this Court, seeking quashing of FIR No. 204 of 2013, dated Dec 30, 2013, under Sections 307, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the file of Police Station Amb, Distt. Una, Himachal Pradesh, charges framed thereupon, and all subsequent proceedings, given the compromise arrived at between them and also based on the medical evidence of the lacerated wounds, the offence would fall under 326 IPC, that the Trial Court wrongly framed charges for the offence of 307 IPC.

(2.) Petitioner 1 is a fashion designer and is a resident of Chandigarh. Petitioners 2 and 3 are the daughters of petitioner 1. Respondent 2 is the complainant. He is residing in the neighborhood of petitioner 1 and is the son of a retired Judge of the High Court.

(3.) From the facts disclosed in the petition and as communicated to us by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioners and the complainant are educated and respectable citizens, who enjoy high social status. Certain unfortunate incidents relating to pet dogs of the petitioners have dragged them to this court. These incidents took ugly turn which resulted in the lodging of FIR No. 163 dated 26/10/2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh by the complainant. Since the offences involved in this case are of a personal nature and are not offences against the society, we had enquired with learned counsel appearing for the parties whether there is any possibility of a settlement. We are happy to note that due to efforts made by learned counsel, parties have seen reason and have entered into a compromise. In view of the compromise, we do not wish to narrate the facts of the case. Counsel for the petitioners has filed an application praying for quashing of the said FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the final report presented under Section 173 of the Code and charges framed by the trial court. To this application is annexed a compromise deed, which is duly signed by the complainant, his wife, the petitioners and respondents 3, 4 and 5. Paragraph 5 of the compromise deed reads thus :