MIRNALINI Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of above captioned petition(s) filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner(s) for quashing of FIR's No.242 of 2020 and 241 of 2020, dtd. 29/10/2020, under Ss. 323, 504, 506, 509 and 147of IPC, registered at police Station Sadar, District Shimla, H.P., as well as consequent proceedings i.e. Police Challan No.76 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. versus Nitin and Others, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla and case No.93 of 2021, titled as State of H.P. versus Lokesh Verma, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.8, Shimla H.P, on the basis of the compromise arrived inter se parties (Annexure P-2), whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them.

(2.) Though, respondent-State in terms of the directions issued by this Court has filed reply, but same is silent about the amicable settlement arrived interse parties. Respondent -complainant namely, Sh. Lokesh Verma and Ms. Mrinalini, in both the FIRs, have come present and are being represented by Ms. Madhurika Sekhon and Mr. Jitender Thakur, Advocates, respectively. They state on oath before this Court that they of their own volition and without there being any external pressure have entered into the compromise, whereby both the parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably interse them. They state that FIRs, sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, are result of misunderstanding and as such, they do not want to prosecute the case further. They state that since after the alleged incident both the parties have apologized to each other for their misbehaviour and misconduct and have undertaken not to repeat such act in future, they shall have no objection in case prayer made in the instant petition(s) for quashing of FIRs as well as consequent proceedings, if any, pending in the competent court of law, is accepted and petitioners-accused are acquitted of the charges. While admitting the contents of the compromise placed on record to be correct, they also admit their signatures. Their statements are taken on record.

(3.) Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, after having heard the aforesaid statements made by respondent No.2/complainant, fairly states that no fruitful purpose would be served in case FIR as well as consequent proceedings sought to be quashed are allowed to sustain. He further states that otherwise also, chances of conviction of petitioners- accused are very remote and bleak in view of the statement made by respondent No.2/complainant before this Court and as such, respondent-State shall have no objection in case the prayer made in the petition is allowed.