AKHIL KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 44 of 2021, dtd. 28/2/2021 under Ss. 379, 468, 471 and 482 of IPC, registered at police Station, Palampur, District Kangra, himachal pradesh as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Criminal Case No.78 of 2021 pending adjudication in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2).

(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.2/complainant namely, Sh. Rohit Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), who alleged that he is an employee of Vishal Megha Mart at Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., and on 26/2/2021, at about 1.PM he parked his TVS Apache Bike bearing registration No.HP-37-F-6770 in the parking of Vishal Megha Mart. He alleged that on 26/2/2021, at about 10.15 PM after having furnished his job, he went to parking to take his bike, but same was not there. He alleged that though initially he remained under impression that someone has made joke with him but subsequently on 27/2/2021, CCTV footage revealed that some unknown person unauthorizedly took his bike from the parking. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings came to be lodged against the petitioner. Though, after completion of the investigation police presented the challan in the competent court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, petitioner entered into the compromise with respondent No.2, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent Court of law.

(3.) Vide order dtd. 15/3/2022, this Court while directing the respondent-State to verify factum with regard to compromise, if any, arrived interse parties, also deemed it necessary to cause presence of the parties in the court, especially respondent No.2, so that factum with regard to correctness and genuineness of the compromise placed on record could be ascertained.