UMESH KUMAR 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. 32 of 2022 dtd. 28/2/2022, under Ss. 147, 148, 149 and 323 of IPC, registered with Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla 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 Dinesh Kumar, who in his statement recorded under Sec. 154 CrPC stated to the police that he is working as Waiter in City Point Restaurant. He alleged that on 27/2/2022, at 11:00 pm when he after closing the Bar was going towards his room, petitioners picked up quarrel with him near Dingu Mata Mandir Gate, Sanjauli. He alleged that while he was talking to somebody, one of the petitioner started quarrelling with him on the pretext that he was making their video. He alleged that all the petitioners gave him beatings, as a consequence of which, he suffered injuries on his head, face and neck. 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 as well as parents of the petitioners have come present in terms of orders dtd. 14/7/2022 and 18/7/2022. Respondent No.2-Dinesh Kumar, who is being represented by Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, 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 are college going students, 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.