HARI KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under Sec. 482 read with Sec. 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.82 of 2019, dated 13.3.2019, under Sections 363, 366-A of Indian Penal Code ( for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.,and consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR, on the basis of the compromise (Annexure P-2) arrived inter se parties.

(2.) Mr. Sanjeev Mankotia, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. He states that as per the instructions imparted to him, respondent No.2 has no objection in case prayer made in the present petition is allowed. Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 fairly acknowledged the factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se parties.

(3.) Facts as emerged from the record are that petitioner lodged the FIR, as referred hereinabove, at police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that person namely, Harpreet alias Lucky son of Sh. Jagtar Singh (respondent No.2), allured his daughter on the pretext of marrying her. He further alleged that his daughter has been kidnapped by the son of respondent No.2. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, FIR, as referred hereinabvoe, came to be lodged against Harpreet alias Lucky son of respondent No.2, who otherwise has not been arrayed as party respondent. However, fact remains that subsequent to lodging of FIR,compromise arrived inter-se petitioner as well as respondent No.2, who happened to be father of the accused Harpreet alias Lucky, whereby both the parties resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. As per the agreement /compromise, complainant-petitioner has agreed that he would solemnize marriage of his daughter with Harpreet alias Lucky on her attaining the age of majority. Petitioner- Complainant has come present in Court, who on oath stated before this court that he of his own volition and without their being any external pressure entered into the compromise with respondent No.2 and he shall have no objection in case FIR lodged at his behest against the son of respondent No.2, is quashed and set-aside. His statement is taken on record.