Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMP/4666/2026 on 16 October 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP No. 4666 of 2026 in Cr. Revision No. 221 of 2015 Date of Decision: 16.10.2026. Het Ram (Panchayat Secretary) ...Petitioner Versus Prakash Chand & Anr.
...Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the receipt dated 16.10.2026 issued by Member Secretary, H.P. Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla, regarding the deposit of ₹12,750/- being the 15% of the cheque amount of ₹85,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that he has received the amount and he has instructions not to
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
proceed with the complaint in view of the compromise effected between the parties.
3. The record shows that the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced by learned Trial Court. The petitioner/accused unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence before learned First Appellate Court and before this Court in Cr. Revision No. 221 of 2015 titled Het Ram (Panchayat Secretary) versus Prakash Chand and Anr decided on 29.07.2026
4. The Division Bench of this Court held in Chune Ram vs. Brikam Chand, 2025:HHC:38122 decided on 13.11.2025 that the Court can quash the conviction even after its finalization in criminal revision based on the compromise effected between the parties. This judgment is binding upon this Court.
5. In view of this judgment, the present petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court as affirmed by learned Appellate Court and before this Court in Cr. Revision No. 221 of 2015 titled Het Ram (Panchayat Secretary) versus Prakash Chand and Anr decided on 29.07.2026 are order to be set aside and the complaint is dismissed as not pressed.
6. It has been submitted that ₹10,000/- has been deposited in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Mandi, H.P. and ₹85,000/- has been deposited in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Mandi, H.P. (total amounting to ₹ 95,000/-), which have to be disbursed to the respondent/complainant in term of the compromise. Let the aforesaid amount of ₹95,000/- are ordered to be disbursed to the respondent/complainant by remitting the same to his bank account alongwith upto date interest on furnishing of the bank account details if not furnished earlier. It has been stated that no other amount has been deposited; hence no other order is required to be passed regarding release of the amount.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 16th October, 2026 (Nikita)