SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Darshan Kumar vs State Of H.P. And Others on 4 March, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 495 of 2019

.

Date of decision: 4.3.2020

Darshan Kumar. …Petitioner.

Versus
State of H.P. and others. …Respondents
Coram

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

matter.

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
2

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

complainant.

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),
Judge
4th March, 2020
(Keshav)

05/03/2020 20:24:52 :::HCHP

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation