Sandeep Kumar Vs State — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sandeep Kumar Vs State — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Compromise accepted; judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2012 and order of sentence dated 28.05.2012 in Sessions Case No. 30-P/VII-2009 set aside; accused/appellants acquitted of the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC on account of the voluntary compromise; Cr. MMO No. 929 of 2025 disposed of along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any; Trial Court record to be returned with copy of the Order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC can be quashed on the basis of the compromise voluntarily effected between the parties during the pendency of the appeal, by taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

As the statement made by the informant/victim on oath shows the compromise was voluntary and without any influence, the compromise is accepted and the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2012 and the order of sentence dated 28.05.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 30-P/VII-2009 are ordered to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The accused/appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC because of the compromise having been effected between the informant and the appellants.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Rakesh Kainthla, J.): Where the parties reconciled during the pendency of the appeal and the informant/victim Chetan Bhatia stated on oath before the Court on 19.11.2025 that he had voluntarily compromised with the accused without any influence and did not wish to pursue his FIR, the Court, relying on Suraj Singh Gujar v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2414, accepted the compromise, set aside the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2012 and order of sentence dated 28.05.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 30-P/VII-2009, and acquitted the accused/appellants of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC (they had already been acquitted of Section 307 r/w 34 IPC, with no separate conviction under Section 323 IPC). Cr. MMO No. 929 of 2025 disposed of along with pending miscellaneous applications; Trial Court record to be returned with a copy of the Order.

2026:HHC:10809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 929 of 2025 with Cr. Appeal No. 234 of 2012 Reserved on: 10.03.2026 Date of Decision: 08.4.2026.

Cr. MMO No. 929 of 2025 Sandeep Kumar & Anr ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and another ...Respondents 2. Cr. Appeal No. 234 of 2012 Sandeep Kumar & Anr. ..Appellants Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent

Coram

*Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla* *Whether approved for reporting?*¹	,*Judge* No	.
For the Petitioner :	Mr Advo	Rajesh cate.	Mandhotra,
For Respondent No.1/State :	Mr Addi	Jitender tional Advo	Sharma, cate General.
For Respondent No.2 :	Mr Advo of 20	Hakam cate, in Cr 25.	Bhardwaj, .MMO No. 929

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

2

2026:HHC:10809

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The appellants/accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, they were acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Since Section 324 of IPC was a graver offence, hence, no separate conviction was recorded for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. Aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused have preferred the present appeal.

The parties reconciled the matter during the pendency of the appeal, the informant/victim Chetan Bhatia made a statement before this Court on 19.11.2025 that he had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person, and he did not want to proceed further with the FIR lodged by him after the compromise.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Suraj Singh Gujar v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2414 that the conviction recorded

3

2026:HHC:10809

for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC can be quashed by taking recourse to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the compromise is effected voluntarily between the parties.

The statement made by the informant/victim on oath shows that the compromise was voluntary and without any influence. Therefore, the compromise is accepted, and the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2012 and the order of sentence dated 28.05.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 30-P/VII-2009 titled State of H.P. versus Sandeep Kumar and another are ordered to be set aside.

The accused/appellants are acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC because of the compromise having been effected between the informant and the appellants.

The present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

The record of the learned Trial Court be returned with

the copy of this Order.

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 8^th April, 2026 (Nikita)