Sandeep Sharma DECISION
Sandeep Sharma, J.
1. By way of present petition filed under S. 482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner for quashing and setting aside FIR No. 255, dated 21.10.2019, under S. 380 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh alongwith consequential proceedings pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Case titled State vs. Harsh Anand, on the basis of compromise entered inter se petitioner and respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-2).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, came to be lodged at the behest of respondent No. 3/complainant, Shri Rajveesh Gautam, who alleged that on 17.10.2019, somebody, after having broken the windows of his house, stole LED TV worth Rs. 13,000/-, a luggage bag worth Rs. 1800 and a headphone of Boat Company, worth Rs. 2,000/- and as such, requested that appropriate action in accordance with law be taken. During investigation, Police found involvement of the petitioner in the case and accordingly, after completion of investigation, presented Challan in the competent Court of law. However, the fact remains that before the criminal proceedings pending before learned Court below could be taken to its logical end, petitioner entered into compromise with respondent No. 3, whereby both the parties resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and as such, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for quashing of FIR in question as well as consequential proceedings pending in the competent Court of law.
3. Though, on 17.7.2020, this Court having carefully perused the averments contained in the compromise found that both the parties have entered into compromise but with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the compromise placed on record, deemed it necessary to call for the report from the Station House Officer concerned. Though, in normal circumstances, Court would have summoned respondent No. 3/complainant for getting his statement recorded but due to spread of Covid-19 pandemic, this Court instead of summoning respondent No. 3/complainant, directed learned Additional Advocate General to verify the factum of compromise, if any, entered inter se respondent No. 3 and the petitioner and also directed the quarters concerned to record statement of the complainant with regard to compromise, if any, entered inter se him and the petitioner.
4. In terms of order dated 17.7.2020, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 3.8.2020 sent by Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, enclosing therein copy of statement given by the complainant, which is taken on record. Perusal of the said communication and statement enclosed therewith reveals that the police, in terms of order dated 17.7.2020, verified the factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se parties and also recorded statement of the complainant, Rajneesh Gautam, who, in his statement given to the Police, admitted the factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se him and the petitioner. He has stated before the Police that the FIR sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, was lodged at his behest but since entire stolen properties stand recovered and handed over to him coupled with the fact that the bail petitioner is a young boy having bright career ahead, he shall have no objection in case FIR lodged at his behest, is ordered to be quashed and set aside. While admitting factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se him and the petitioner, he stated before the Police that since the bail petitioner is his neighbourer's son and at present enjoys good relations with him, he shall have no objection ........