KRISHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 33 of 2020 dtd. 20/2/2020, under Ss. 341, 323, 506, 201 and 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (2) of SC and ST Act, registered with Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending before the court below, on the basis of compromise/amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties.

(2.) Averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, reveal that FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No.2- complainant namely Noopa Ram, who alleged that on 20/2/2020, at 11:00 am, while he was going from his new house to the old house, petitioner No.1-Krishan Lal, met him on the way. He alleged that when he asked the petitioner Krishan Lal to refund the money taken by him, petitioner No.1 alongwith petitioners No. 2 to 4 gave him beatings and extended threats to do away with his life. He alleged that all the petitioners besides giving him beatings also humiliated him by making caste related remarks. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, parties to the lis have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter-se them by way of compromise placed on record and as such, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set- aside the FIR as well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent court of law.

(3.) Though instructions of respondent-State are awaited, but respondent No.2 Noopa Ram has come present in terms of order dtd. 4/8/2022. Respondent No.2, who is being represented by Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate, on oath states that he of his own volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He states that since petitioners, who belong to the same village, have apologized for their misbehavior and undertaken not to repeat such act in future, he does not wish to prosecute the case further and shall have no objection in case prayer made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings is accepted. While admitting contents of the compromise to be correct, he also admits his signature on the same. His statement is taken on record.