1 ( 2025:HHC:16347 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.343 of 2024 Date of Decision: 27.05.2025 Manish Kumar & Ors. …Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : None. For the Respondents : Mr. Tejasvi Sharma Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rohit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State None for respondents No.4 and 5. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) The petitioners have filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.PC.’) for quashing of FIR No.0124 of 2022, dated 22.10.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) with Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P., as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amb, District Una, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:16347 ) case bearing No.34 of 2023, titled as State of H.P. versus Manish Kumar, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between the parties. 2. As per the stand taken in the petition, after registration of the FIR in question, the police had conducted the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet before the learned trial Court. During the pendency of the said case, a compromise is allegedly stated to have taken place, between the petitioners and respondents No.4 & 5. The copy of the compromise has also been annexed with the petition. 3. On 03.12.2024, petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4, namely Manish Kumar, Neeraj Parmar and Parveen Kumari, put appearance before this Court and their statements were recorded with regard to the factual position, as mentioned, in the application. 4. On 31.12.2024, this Court had passed the following orders:- “The Registry is directed to make a detailed report regarding representation of the parties. List on 3.1.2025”. 5. In pursuance of the said order, Registry has made a detailed report, disclosing therein, that Mr. Manjeet Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate, had put appearance, on behalf of respondent No.4, whereas, Power of Attorney on 3 ( 2025:HHC:16347 ) behalf of respondent No.4 has not been filed, till date. Mr. Vinod Tomar, Advocate, had put appearance, on behalf of respondent No.5, who has filed the Power of Attorney. 6. On 03.01.2025, it was submitted by learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4 that he will file the Power of Attorney, during the course of the day, however, till date, Power of Attorney, on behalf of the said respondent, has not been filed. 7. Despite repeated calls, neither, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has bothered to put appearance, nor any one has put appearance, on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5. 8. Despite service, respondent No.4, who has put the criminal machinery into motion, has not bothered to put appearance before this Court. Meaning thereby, the genuineness of the compromise, upon which, the present petition has been filed, has been disputed by respondent No.4. 9. In such situation, when, there is nothing on record, except the stand, taken by the petitioners, with regard to the compromise, this Court has left with no other option, but to dismiss the present petition. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 4 ( 2025:HHC:16347 ) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge May 27, 2025 (subhash)