Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2025:HHC:15613 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.: 56 of 2025 Decided on : 22.05.2025 Rajni Kumari & Others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Kush Sharma & Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Tejsavi Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge
(oral). Initially petitioners Rajni Kumari and Ekta Kumari have filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of FIR No.46/2020, dated 10.03.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the FIR, in question), registered with Police Station, Amb, 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:15613 District Una, H.P., under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’), on merits, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, which are stated to be pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First ClassII, Amb, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’). 2. However, during the pendency of the present petition, the matter has now been compromised, between the petitioners and respondent No.2. As such, the applicants have impleaded Raghubir Singh and Rakesh Kumar, as partypetitioners No.3 and 4, in the main petition, by moving Cr.MP No. 2056 of 2025. 3. Now, the relief of quashing has been sought, on the basis of the compromise, which has taken place between the petitioners and respondent No.2. 4. According to the petitioners, on the statement of respondent No.2, the FIR, in question, has been registered against them, as well as, one Vipan Kumar son of Shamsher Singh. 3 2025:HHC:15613
5. After registration of the FIR, the police has conducted the investigation and submitted the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC, which is now pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 6. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the aforesaid case, in order to maintain their future cordial relations, they have compromised the matter with respondent No.2. 7. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which are Ex. PX.
8.
On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made that the FIR, in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, may kindly be quashed and set aside, qua the petitioners, by allowing the petition. 9. When put to notice, respondent No.1State has filed the status report, mentioning therein the circumstances, in which, the FIR, in question, has been registered, at the instance of respondent No.2, as well as, the manner, in which, the investigation has been conducted, by the police, in this case. 4 2025:HHC:15613
10. Respondent No.2, who, at one point of time, had put the criminal machinery into motion, appeared before this Court and has stated that he, as well as, the petitioners are residents of the same area, as such, in order to maintain their cordial relations and in order to live peacefully in the society, the matter has been settled between them, vide compromise Ex.PX. He, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he has no objection, in case, the petition is allowed, as prayed for. 11. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioners, on oath. 12. Heard. 13. Admittedly, in this case, there are five accused, including the petitioners. Respondent No.2, i.e. complainant, has categorically stated that the matter has been compromised only with the petitioners and he has reserved his right to prosecute the other accused person. 14. In such situation, the question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is as to whether the FIR can be quashed in parts. 5 2025:HHC:15613
15. The answer to this question is in affirmative, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lovely Salhotra and another versus State NCT of Delhi and another, (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 391, has held that the FIR can be quashed in parts. Relevant para4 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
“4.
We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 herein only on the ground that the investigation against coaccused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against coaccused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie.”
16. The above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been followed by a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.1741 of 2021, titled as Sunil Tomar versus The State of NCT of Delhi and another. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:
6 2025:HHC:15613
“9. Partial quashing or part quashing of FIR only qua the petitioner/accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the matter can be allowed and while quashing, it must be appreciated that the petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to suffer based on a complaint filed by the respondent, when subsequently, all disputes have been settled between the parties. Reliance can be placed on Poonam Khanna vs. State & Ors in Crl.M.C.No. 3690/2016 Dated 30.01.2018. 10. In Lovely Salhotra and Anr. vs. State, NCT of Delhi (2017 SCC Online SC 636), in paragraph 4 and 7, it is observed and held as under:
“4. We have taken into account the fact of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellantherein.
The High Court was wrong in holding that the F.I.R. cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellantsherein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent No.2 – herein only on the ground that the investigation against coaccused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against co accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie. 7. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court and quash the FIR qua the appellants herein."
17. In view of the above, the partial quashing is permissible under the law. 7 2025:HHC:15613
18. Viewed thus, when the compromise has been effected between the petitioners and respondent No.2 (complainant), then, keeping the proceedings, against the petitioners, alive, is nothing, but, wastage of the precious judicial time. 19. Respondent No.2complainant has categorically deposed, in his statement, that in order to maintain their future cordial relations and in order to live peacefully in the society, the matter has been compromised with the petitioners only. 20. In such situation, the chances are not so bright that respondent No.2complainant will depose against the petitioners. 21. Considering all these facts, the petition is allowed and FIR No.46 of 2020, dated 10.03.2020, registered, under Sections 323, 452, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, with Police Station, Amb, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are ordered to be quashed, qua the petitioners only. 8 2025:HHC:15613
22. The compromise deed, Ex.PX, and the statements of the parties, recorded in the Court, shall form part of the judgment. 23. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge May 22, 2025(ps)