Sukhwinder Singh Parmar Vs Rama Sood — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sukhwinder Singh Parmar Vs Rama Sood — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision allowed; the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Una, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 31/2010 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.6.2010 (JMFC Court No. III, Una, Criminal Complaint No. 136-II-05) ordered to be set aside; the Rs. 70,000/- deposited before the JMFC, Una to be disbursed to the complainant as per the compromise; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision should be allowed and the affirmed judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside, in view of the reconciliation/compromise between the parties and the complainant's stated unwillingness to proceed further with the complaint. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the matter has been reconciled between the parties and the complainant does not want to proceed further with the complaint, the revision is allowed and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Una, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 31/2010, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.6.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. III, Una, H.P. in Criminal Complaint No. 136-II-05, is ordered to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The amount of Rs. 70,000/- stated to have been deposited before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Una, HP is to be disbursed to the complainant as per the compromise effected between the parties.

Key takeaways

In view of the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Brocar and another (2025) SCC Online SC 2069, the petitioner was directed to deposit 7.5% of the cheque amount, which the petitioner/accused duly deposited (Rs. 5,250/- of the Rs. 70,000/- cheque amount) with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA (Rakesh Kainthla, J., oral) — Cr. Revision No. 72 of 2014, decided 12.11.2025 (not approved for reporting). Sukhwinder Singh Parmar (petitioner/accused) vs. Rama Sood (respondent/complainant). The respondent/complainant, under instructions, submitted that the matter had been compromised between the parties and that she did not wish to proceed with her complaint. Noting that, in view of Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Brocar and another (2025) SCC Online SC 2069, the petitioner had been directed to deposit 7.5% of the cheque amount and had produced a receipt of Rs. 5,250/- (7.5% of Rs. 70,000/-) issued by the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, and that the cheque amount of Rs. 70,000/- stood deposited before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Una, HP, the Court allowed the revision, set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Una, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 31/2010 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.6.2010 passed by the JMFC, Court No. III, Una in Criminal Complaint No. 136-II-05, and directed that the deposited Rs. 70,000/- be disbursed to the complainant as per the compromise. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, were disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 72 of 2014 Date of Decision: 12.11.2025.

Sukhwinder Singh Parmar ...Petitioner Versus Rama Sood ...Respondent

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. : For the Respondent Mr. Rajeev Sood, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral):

Mr. Rajeev Sood, learned counsel for the respondent

/complainant, under instructions, submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties, therefore, he does not want to proceed with the present complaint filed by her.

In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Brocar and another (2025) SCC Online SC

2069 , the petitioner was directed to deposit 7.5% of the cheque

amount.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2

Accordingly, the petitioner/accused has produced the copy of receipt of ₹5,250/- being 7.5% of the cheque amount of ₹70,000/-, issued by Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla.

Since the matter has been reconciled between the parties and the complainant does not want to proceed further with the present complaint, therefore, the revision is allowed and the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 /2010, titled Sukhwinder Singh Parmar Vs. Rama Sood, afÏrming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.6.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.III, Una, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 136-II-05, titled Rama Sood Vs. Sukhwinder Singh Parmar are ordered to be set aside.

It has been submitted that the amount of ₹70,000/has been deposited before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Una, HP. Let the same be disbursed to the complainant as per the compromise effected between the parties.

It has further been submitted that no other amount has been deposited in any other Court.

3

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any

(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

12^th November, 2025

(Chander)