Virender Singh, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C.) for seeking quashing of FIR No. 0027 of 2019, dated 18.2.2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) registered with Police Station, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, as well as, the resultant proceedings thereto, stated to be pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in case No.68 of 2019, titled as ‘State vs. Sanjeev Kumar’.
2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that due to some mis-understanding between the petitioner and respondent No. 4, FIR No. 0027/2019 has been lodged against the petitioner. After registration of the FIR, Police has conducted investigation in the matter and filed report under Section 173 (2) of Cr. P.C., which is stated to be pending in the Court of learned trial Court.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that now, with the intervention of the respectables of the society, the matter has been compromised between the parties, on account of the fact that the misunderstanding has now been cleared between the petitioner and respondent No. 4.
4. The terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which has been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P- 2.
5. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made.
6. When put to notice, respondents-State has filed status report, disclosing therein the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered, the investigation has been conducted and the report has been filed, before the learned trial Court.
7. Respondent No. 4, who has put criminal machinery into motion, by lodging the FIR in question, against the petitioner, today appeared before this Court and stated on oath that he had lodged the FIR, due to some mis-understanding and the said mis-understanding has, now, been cleared, due to intervention of the respectables of the society, as well as, relatives. Thus, the matter has been compromised between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and copy of the same is Annexure P-2, which bears signatures of the petitioner, as well as, respondent No. 4.
8. In view of the compromise, respondent No. 4 has categorically stated that he has no objection, in case the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question, as well as, resultant proceedings thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed.
9. Similar type of statement has also been made by the petitioner.
10. Heard.
11. Keeping in view the nature of offences, involved in the present case, as well as, the fact that the FIR in question got registered by respondent No. 4, due to some mis-understanding, this Court is of the view that the petitioner, as well as, respondent No. 4 have settled the matter, by way of compromise, that too, with the intervention of the respectables of the society. As such, the acceptance of the petition must be honoured by this Court, as the same will save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, and the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it.
12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioner and respondent No. 4, respondent No. 4 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case the FIR in question, as well as, resultant proceedings are quashed and the present petition is allowed.
13. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace and harmony in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 4, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of the FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 4, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law.
14. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 0027/2019, dated 18.2.2019, under Sections 452, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC, as well as, consequent proceedings thereto, pending adjudication, before the learned trial Court, are quashed.
15. The statements, so recorded today and the compromise, Annexure P-2 be read as part of the judgment.
16. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
