IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No. 537 of 2018

.
Date of Decision: 6.3.2019

Fateh Bahadur Thapa ………Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. and Ors. …….Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting1?

For the petitioner : Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate,

For the respondents : Mr. S.C. Sharma, Mr. Dinesh Thakur and Mr.
r Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocate

Generals with Mr. Amit Dhumal, Deputy
Advocate General, for the State.
Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate vice
counsel, for respondent No.3.

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of

the FIR No.50/2018, dated 30.4.2018, under Section 354 of Indian Penal

Code, registered at Police Station Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., as

well as consequent proceedings, pending before the learned CJM,

Solan, H.P.

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP
-2-

2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that in the year 1987,

petitioner herein started business of Readymade Garments in Shop No

.

39-A, Lower Bazar Sabathu, District Solan, H.P., owned by Shri Neeraj

Aggarwal. In the year, 1987, aforesaid shop was rented to the petitioner

by Shri Chaman Lal Aggarwal on the monthly rent of Rs. 300 and since

then, petitioner had been running his business from the premises referred

herein above. After the death of Sh. Chaman Lal, his son namely Neeraj

Aggarwal filed petition in the Court of learned Rent Controller, Solan

against the petitioner for eviction of the premises detailed herein above.

As per averments contained in the petition, rent petition having been

filed by Shri Neeraj Aggarwal, is still pending adjudication before the

Court below. On 30.4.2018, respondent No.3 Smt. Neelam Aggarwal,

wife of Shri Pankaj Aggarwal, and Smt. Upasna Jain Aggarwal, wife of

Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, lodged FIR bearing No. 50 of 2018 at P.S.

Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., against the petitioner herein, alleging

therein indecent behavior of the petitioner. On the basis of statements

having been made by the above named complainants under Section

154 Cr.PC., FIR detailed herein above, came to be lodged against the

petitioner under Section 354 IPC. After completion of investigation,

challan came to be filed in the court of learned CJM, Solan.

3. On 5.1.2019, during the pendency of the present

proceedings, before this Court, learned counsel representing the parties

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP
-3-

informed this court that parties are in process of settling their dispute

amicably inter-se them and as such, this Court on the joint request

.

having been made by the learned counsel for the parties adjourned the

case for today’s date with a direction to the parties to remain present in

the Court.

4. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel

representing the parties, on the instructions of their respective clients,

who are otherwise present in Court, informed that as per compromise

arrived at inter-se parties, petitioner shall vacate the premises in

question forthwith and Smt. Neelam Aggarwal and Ms. Upasna Jain

Aggarwal, would also withdraw the cases lodged by them against the

petitioner.

5. Smt. Neelam Aggarwal and Ms. Upasna Jain Aggarwal,

who are present in the Court, while fairly acknowledging factum with

regard to compromise arrived at inter-se parties, stated on oath before

this Court that they of their own volition and without there being any

external pressure, have entered into compromise with the present

petitioner, whereby they have resolved to withdraw the case registered

against the petitioner at their behest. Above named persons also stated

before this Court that they shall have no objection in case prayer made

on behalf of the petitioner for compounding the case is allowed and FIR

as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP
-4-

law, are quashed and set-aside. Statements having been made by

them are taken on record.

.

6. Similarly, petitioner namely Fateh Bahadur Thapa, stated

before this Court that in terms of the compromise, he of his own volition

and without there being any external pressure is ready and willing to

vacate the premises in question today itself. He stated that shop in

question is otherwise vacant, but he be given some time to remove the

fixtures. He further stated that in case FIR lodged at the best of

respondent No.3 is ordered to be quashed and set-aside, he shall have

no claim of any kind against Smt. Neelam Aggarwal and Ms. Upasana

Jain Aggarwal and he shall also withdraw the cases against the

respondents. His statement is also taken on record.

7. During proceedings of the case, petitioner handed over the

keys of the shop to Shri Neeraj Aggarwal owner of the premises in

question, who in turn undertook before this Court that he shall make

available key to the petitioner for enabling him to remove the fixtures,

which in any eventuality, would be removed by the petitioner within a

period of one week from today.

8. Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal, husband of Ms. Upasana Jain

Aggarwal (complainant) also agreed before this Court that he would

withdraw rent petition having been filed by him against the petitioner

but prayed that amount deposited by the petitioner on account of

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP
-5-

arrears of rent in the court below, may be ordered to be released in his

favour.

.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents state that since parties

have amicably settled the matter inter-se them, this Court may accede

to the prayer having been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR as

well as consequent proceedings pending before the competent court

of law in view of the statements having been made by the respondents

for compounding the offence.

10. This Court, after having carefully perused the compromise,

which has been duly effected between the parties, sees substantial

force in the prayer having been made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused that offences in the instant case can be ordered to

be compounded.

11. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC,

this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the

judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others

versus State of Punjab and another (2014)6 Supreme Court Cases 466,

whereby Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting

the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the

settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.

Perusal of judgment referred above clearly depicts that in para 29.1,

Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP
-6-

under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power

which lies in the Court to compound the offences under section 320 of

.

the Code. No doubt, under section 482 of the Code, the High Court has

inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases

which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the

matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised

sparingly and with great caution. Para Nos. 29 to 29.7 of the judgment

are reproduced as under:-

“29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay

down the following principles by which the High Court would be
guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the

parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code
while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or
refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the
criminal proceedings:

29.1Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under
Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to

quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not
compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between
themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and

with caution.

29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that
basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the

guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.

While exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C the High Court
is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not be exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP
-7-

offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for
offences alleged to have been committed under special statute
like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by
Public Servants while working in that capacity are not to be

.

quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim

and the offender.

29.4. On the other, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
pre-dominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of

commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship
or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to
whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and

continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused
to him by not quashing the criminal cases.

29.6. Offences under Section 307 IPC would fall in the category of

heinous and serious offences and therefore is to be generally
treated as crime against the society and not against the individual

alone. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely
because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High
Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is
there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient

evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving the charge under
Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court
to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons

used etc. Medical report in respect of injuries suffered by the victim
can generally be the guiding factor. On the basis of this prima facie
analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a strong

possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote
and bleak. In the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement
and quash the criminal proceedings whereas in the later case it
would be permissible for the High Court to accept the plea

compounding the offence based on complete settlement between
the parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact
that the settlement between the parties is going to result in harmony
between them which may improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section
482 of the Code or not, timings of settlement play a crucial role.
Those cases where the settlement is arrived at immediately after the
alleged commission of offence and the matter is still under
investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement to quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is
because of the reason that at this stage the investigation is still on
and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP
-8-

cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or
the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show
benevolence in exercising its powers favourably, but after prima
facie assessment of the circumstances/material mentioned above.
On the other hand, where the prosecution evidence is almost

.

complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at

the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from
exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such
cases the trial court would be in a position to decide the case
finally on merits and to come a conclusion as to whether the
offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in

those cases where the conviction is already recorded by the trial
court and the matter is at the appellate stage before the High
Court, mere compromise between the parties would not be a
ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender
who has already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is

proved under Section 307 IPC and conviction is already recorded
of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no question of sparing a
convict found guilty of such a crime”.

“32. We find from the impugned order that the sole reason which

weighed with the High Court in refusing to accept the settlement
between the parties was the nature of injuries. If we go by that

factor alone, normally we would tend to agree with the High Court’s
approach. However, as pointed out hereinafter, some other
attendant and inseparable circumstances also need to be kept in
mind which compels us to take a different view.

33. We have gone through the FIR as well which was recorded on
the basis of statement of the complainant/victim. It gives an
indication that the complainant was attacked allegedly by the
accused persons because of some previous dispute between the
parties, though nature of dispute, etc. is not stated in detail.

However, a very pertinent statement appears on record viz.
“respectable persons have been trying for a compromise up till

now, which could not be finalized.” This becomes an important
aspect. It appears that there have been some disputes which led to
the aforesaid purported attack by the accused on the complainant.
In this context when we find that the elders of the village, including

Sarpanch, intervened in the matter and the parties have not only
buried their hatchet but have decided to live peacefully in future,
this becomes an important consideration. The evidence is yet to be
led in the Court. It has not even started. In view of compromise
between parties, there is a minimal chance of the witnesses coming
forward in support of the prosecution case. Even though nature of
injuries can still be established by producing the doctor as witness
who conduced medical examination, it may become difficult to
prove as to who caused these injuries. The chances of conviction,
therefore, appear to be remote. It would, therefore, be unnecessary
to drag these proceedings. We, taking all these factors into
consideration cumulatively, are of the opinion that the compromise
between the parties be accepted and the criminal proceedings

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP
-9-

arising out of FIR No.121 dated 14.7.2010 registered with police
station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural be quashed. We order
accordingly.”

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case Gian Singh v. State of

.

Punjab and anr. (2012) 10 SCC 303 has held that power of the High

Court in quashing of the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in

exercise of its inherent power is distinct and different from the power of

a Criminal Court for compounding offences under Section 320 Cr.PC.

Even in the judgment passed in Narinder Singh’s case, the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held that while exercising inherent power under Section 482

Cr.PC the Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the

crime and its social impact and it cautioned the Courts not to exercise

the power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of

mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc. However subsequently,

the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dimpey Gujral and Ors. vs. Union Territory

through Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and Ors. (2013( 11 SCC 497 has

also held as under:-

“7. In certain decisions of this Court in view of the settlement
arrived at by the parties, this Court quashed the FIRs though some

of the offences were non-compoundable. A two Judges’ Bench of
this court doubted the correctness of those decisions. Learned
Judges felt that in those decisions, this court had permitted
compounding of non-compoundable offences. The said issue
was, therefore, referred to a larger bench.

The larger Bench in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
considered the relevant provisions of the Code and the judgments
of this court and concluded as under: (SCC pp. 342-43, para 61)

61. The position that emerges from the above discussion
can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in
quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP

– 10 –

from the power given to a criminal court for compounding
the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power
is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to
be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in
such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to

.

prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases

power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or
F.I.R may be exercised where the offender and victim have
settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the

High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute.

Such offences are not private in nature and have serious
impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the
victim and offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in
that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis for
r quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But

the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil flavour stand on different footing for the
purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such
like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony
relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the

wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the
parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category
of cases, High Court may quash criminal proceedings if in
its view, because of the compromise between the offender

and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of criminal case would put accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice

would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case
despite full and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider

whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of
justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount
to abuse of process of law despite settlement and
compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that
criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the
above question(s) is in affirmative, the High Court shall be
well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.” (emphasis supplied)

8. In the light of the above observations of this court in Gian Singh,
we feel that this is a case where the continuation of criminal

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP

– 11 –

proceedings would tantamount to abuse of process of law
because the alleged offences are not heinous offences showing
extreme depravity nor are they against the society. They are
offences of a personal nature and burying them would bring about
peace and amity between the two sides. In the circumstances of

.

the case, FIR No. 163 dated 26.10.2006 registered under Section

147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 452 and 506 of the IPC at Police Station
Sector 3, Chandigarh and all consequential proceedings arising
there from including the final report presented under Section 173 of
the Code and charges framed by the trial Court are hereby
quashed.

13. Recently Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 4th

October, 2017, titled as Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai

Karmur and others versus State of Gujarat and Another, passed in

Criminal Appeal No.1723 of 2017 arising out of SLP(Crl) No.9549 of 2016,

reiterated the principles/ parameters laid down in Narinder Singh’s case

supra for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings. It

would be profitable to reproduce para No. 13 to 15 of the judgment

herein:

“13. The same principle was followed in Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Maninder Singh (2016)1 SCC 389 by a bench of two
learned Judges of this Court. In that case, the High Court had, in

the exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 quashed
proceedings under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with

Section 120-B of the Penal Code. While allowing the appeal filed
by the Central Bureau of Investigation Mr Justice Dipak Misra (as
the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that the case
involved allegations of forgery of documents to embezzle the

funds of the bank. In such a situation, the fact that the dispute had
been settled with the bank would not justify a recourse to
thepower under Section 482:

“…In economic offences Court must not only keep in view
that money has been paid to the bank which has been
defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of
simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence
with which we are concerned is well planned and was
committed with a deliberate design with an eye of
personal profit regardless of consequence to the society
at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground
that the accused has settled the amount with the bank
would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP

– 12 –

against the economic offenders are not allowed to
continue, the entire community is aggrieved.”

14. In a subsequent decision in State of Tamil Nadu v R
Vasanthi Stanley (2016) 1 SCC 376, the court rejected the
submission that the first respondent was a woman “who was

.

following the command of her husband” and had signed certain

documents without being aware of the nature of the fraud which
was being perpetrated on the bank. Rejecting the submission, this
Court held that:

“… Lack of awareness, knowledge or intent is neither to be

considered nor accepted in economic offences. The
submission assiduously presented on gender leaves us
unimpressed. An offence under the criminal law is an
offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an
accused. True it is, there are certain provisions in Code of

Criminal Procedure relating to exercise of jurisdiction Under
Section 437, etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a
different sphere. A person committing a murder or getting
involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents,
cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her
gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily a
r valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this case.

We say no more on this score…”

“…A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence
or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to
create a dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not
to be quashed on the ground that there is delay in trial or
the principle that when the matter has been settled it

should be quashed to avoid the load on the system…”

15.The broad principles which emerge from the precedents
on the subject may be summarized in the following propositions:

(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court

to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure
the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new
powers. It only recognizes and preserves powers which

inhere in the High Court;

(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a First Information Report or a criminal

proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been
arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the
same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an offence,
the power of the court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The
power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether
the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent
power;

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP

– 13 –

(iv) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to secure the
ends of justice or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of
any court;

(v) The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information

.

Report should be quashed on the ground that the offender

and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on
the facts and circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;

(vi) In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while

dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity
of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving
mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and
dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim

or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but
have a serious impact upon society. The decision to
continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for
serious offences;

(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned;

(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have

settled the dispute;

(ix) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal

proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and
the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause

oppression and prejudice; and

(x) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
propositions (viii) and (ix) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the state
have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere
dispute between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash where the offender
is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic
fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic system will
weigh in the balance.

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP

– 14 –

14. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law that

High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings even in

.

those cases which are not compoundable, but such power is to be

exercised sparingly and with great caution. In the judgments, referred

hereinabove, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that Court

while exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., must have

due regard to the nature and gravity of offence sought to be

compounded. Hon’ble Apex Court has though held that heinous and

serious offences of mental depravity, murder,
r rape, dacoity etc.

cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the

victim have settled the dispute, but it has also observed that while

exercising its powers, High Court is to examine as to whether the

possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of

criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and

prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not

quashing the criminal cases. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that

Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C can also be

swayed by the fact that settlement between the parties is going to result

in harmony between them which may improve their future relationship.

Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment rendered in State of Tamil Nadu

supra, has reiterated that Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of

the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP

– 15 –

secure the ends of justice and has held that the power to quash under

Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. In

.

the aforesaid judgment Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while forming

an opinion whether a criminal proceedings or complaint should be

quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court

must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of

the inherent power.

15. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in the

petition as well as the submissions having been made by the learned

counsel for the parties that the matter has been compromised, and

keeping in mind the well settled proposition of law as well as the

compromise being genuine, this Court has no inhibition in accepting

the compromise and quashing the FIR as well as consequent

proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR. Accordingly, in view of

the discussion made hereinabove, FIR No.50/2018, dated 30.4.2018,

under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station

Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., against the petitioner, are quashed

and set-aside. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall have no

claim of any kind against the complainants/respondents and both the

parties shall withdraw the cases, if any, against each other and

petitioner shall be made available key for enabling him to remove the

fixtures within a period of one week from today. Learned trial Court is

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP

– 16 –

also directed to release the amount lying deposited before it in favour

of Mr. Neeraj Aggarwal, who is petitioner in the rent petition, on his

.

making appropriate application annexing therewith account details.

16. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

6th March, 2019 (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge.

(Manjit)

07/03/2019 22:00:00 :::HCHP