DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The informant/victim appeared before the Court and made a statement that he had entered into a compromise with the present petitioners voluntarily without any influence or monetary consideration. In view of the compromise, he does not want to pursue the FIR lodged by him against the petitioners. He has no objection, in case, FIR No. 97 of 2018 dtd. 13/7/2018 is ordered to be quashed.

(2.) Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondent no. 1 submitted that since the matter is at the final stage; therefore, the permission should not be granted. This submission is not acceptable. It was laid down in Shaikh Shaukat and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (18/1/2023- MHOR): that the High Court has the power to permit the quashing of the proceedings under its inherent power even after the conviction. It was observed: "7. From a plain reading of this judgement, it is clear that powers under Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C can be exercised in post-conviction matters when an appeal is pending before one or the other judicial forum. In the instant case, as noted above, it is stated that the appeal filed by the Applicants is pending before the Sessions Court, Aurangabad. Hence, there is no embargo in exercising power under Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C to quash present proceedings at post-conviction stage, particularly considering the fact that the proceedings are emanating from the matrimonial dispute."

(3.) In the present case, there is no allegation that the compromise was not lawful. The offences punishable under Sec. 324, 323 and 506 IPC are compoundable under Sec. 320 of Cr.P.C. The only impediment is Sec. 25 of the Arms Act because a Khukhri was used for the commission of the offence. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and that the matter has been compromised between the parties voluntarily, permission is granted and the FIR No.97 of 2018 dtd. 13/7/2018 and the consequent proceedings arising out of the FIR are ordered to be quashed.