IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.M.O No. 68 of 2009 Date of decision: 1.7.2009 Raj Kumar and another ..Petitioner Versus State of HP ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioners in this case are the victim of the offences and the accused. They have approached this Court for quashing a criminal case, which has been instituted by the police against petitioner Raj Kumar. 3. Facts, relevant for disposal of the petition, are that at the time of incident petitioner Raj Kumar was a Pujari of Mata Chintpurni Temple while petitioner M.R. Sharma was the Temple Officer of the said temple, nominated in accordance with the provision of Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act. Petitioner M.R. Sharma lodged an FIR with the police that he had been assaulted by petitioner Raj Kumar, in his Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… capacity as Temple Officer and, thus, he had committed offence, under Sections 332, 353, 341 and 506 IPC. 4. Police investigated the case and filed Challan against petitioner Raj Kumar in the Court of concerned Magistrate. It appears that after the institution of the case, on the basis of FIR lodged by petitioner M.R. Sharma, both the petitioners entered into some compromise to put an end to the acrimony. Offences, under Sections 353 and 332 IPC being not compoundable, they approached the District Magistrate for withdrawal of the case. District Magistrate granted permission for withdrawal of the case. Concerned Assistant Public Prosecutor made an application to the trial Magistrate, to withdraw the case. That application has been dismissed by the trial Magistrate, vide order dated 18.10.2006. Petitioners have now approached this Court for quashing the case, as the parties have settled the matter, at their own level. 5. Admittedly, when the incident had taken place, both the petitioners had been working in the same temple. Petitioner Raj Kumar (accused) was serving as Pujari, while the other petitioner M.R. Sharma was the Temple Officer, appointed under the provision of Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act. I have been told that petitioner M.R. Sharma is no longer the Temple Officer of the aforesaid temple, as he has been transferred to some other place. 6. Since there has been a settlement between the complainant (petitioner No.2) and the accused (petitioner No.1), it is quite likely that prosecution witnesses would not be supporting prosecution case. Also even if the prosecution case is proved and petitioner Raj Kumar is held guilty, that would serve no purpose. …3… Rather, it would create bitterness and acrimony between the two petitioners, which they have put to an end, by themselves settling the matter amicably. 7. In view of the above stated position, present petition is allowed and Criminal Case No.258-1/03, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Amb, is quashed. Cr. M.P No.379 of 2009 Infructuous. Dasti copy. July 1, 2009 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J