IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
Cr.MMO No. 495 of 2019
Date of decision: 4.3.2020
Darshan Kumar. …Petitioner.
State of H.P. and others. …Respondents
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Vacation Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: r Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.S.C. Sharma, Additional Advocate
General, with Mr.Kamal Kant, Deputy
Advocate General, for respondent No. 1.
None for respondent No. 2.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral).
This petition has been filed for quashing of FIR and criminal
proceedings pending before the trial Court in consequence thereto. It is
claimed by petitioner that respondent No. 2 has compromised the
2. FIR in question, i.e. FIR No. 3, dated 29.1.2011 was
registered against petitioner under Sections 354, 341 and 323 IPC.
Offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC are compoundable under Section
320 (1) Cr.P.C. by the person to whom hurt is caused and who was
restrained or confined. However, offence under Section 354 IPC is not
compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
3. No doubt, power of this Court, for quashing the FIR and/or
criminal proceedings initiated in consequence thereto, is not inhibited by
the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and in view of judgments passed
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes
05/03/2020 20:24:52 :::HCHP
by the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbathbhai
Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another,
(2017) 9 SCC 641, Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and
Others reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, this Court
may permit compounding of the offence, irrespective of the fact that
offence is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. However, for
asserting the compromise by endorsing it, by filing affidavit or any other
manner, presence/representation of complainant would be necessary.
4. In present case petition has been filed on the ground that
complainant/respondent No. 2 has compromised the matter with
petitioner/accused and does not intend to continue with the criminal
proceedings. Certified copy of statement of respondent No. 2 and
written agreement executed by her, have also been placed on record,
but fact remains that despite service, respondent No. 2 did not turn up.
Despite granting various adjournments on request of counsel for
petitioner/accused, he could not ensure presence/representation of
5. In given facts and circumstances of this case, in absence of
compliance, it would not be warranted to allow the petition.
6. Therefore, for want of presence/representation of
complainant for endorsement of compromise by and on her behalf,
present petition is dismissed, along with application(s), if any.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
4th March, 2020
05/03/2020 20:24:52 :::HCHP