Hari Ram Vs Bhikham Ram — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Hari Ram Vs Bhikham Ram — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision allowed; judgment dated 25.11.2022 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2019 affirming the judgment of conviction dated 08.08.2019 and order of sentence dated 06.09.2019 set aside; ₹70,000/- deposited in the Registry to be disbursed to the complainant/respondent No.1.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision should be allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence (as affirmed in appeal) set aside in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the complainant not wishing to proceed further with the revision.

Court's answer

The present criminal revision is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The judgment dated 25.11.2022 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2019 affirming the judgment of conviction dated 08.08.2019 and order of sentence dated 06.09.2019 are ordered to be set aside.

Key takeaways

The amount of ₹70,000/- deposited before the Registry is to be disbursed to the complainant/respondent No.1 by remitting the same to his savings bank account on furnishing of the bank account details, if not furnished earlier; no other amount has been deposited before any other Court.ratio¶15
The petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2023 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla), decided 12.03.2026 by Rakesh Kainthla, J. — Compromise between parties. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioner and the complainant/respondent No.1 entered into a compromise and the complainant, under instructions, stated that he did not wish to proceed further with the revision. Held, allowing the revision: the judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2019 (Hari Ram vs. Bhikham Ram & another), affirming the judgment of conviction dated 08.08.2019 and order of sentence dated 06.09.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachiot at Gohar in Criminal Complaint No. 238-1/2018/22-III/2019 (Bhikham Ram vs. Hari Ram), is ordered to be set aside. The amount of ₹70,000/- deposited before the Registry is to be disbursed to the complainant by remitting it to his savings bank account; a receipt for deposit of ₹6,750/- (15% of the cheque amount) with the H.P. Legal Services Authority was produced. Petition and pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, disposed of.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Revision No. 24 of 2023 Decided on : 12.03.2026

Hari Ram ...Petitioner Versus Bhikam Ram & another ...Respondent

Coram

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Tejasvi Verma, Advocate, vice Lalit Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the Respondents : Ms. Mamta Devi, Advocate, vice Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent No.2/State.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the receipt issued by Member Secretary, H.P. Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla, regarding the deposit of ₹6,750/being the 15% of the cheque amount.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/complainant , under instructions, submits that

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

2

parties have entered into compromise and

complainant/respondent No.1 does not want to proceed further with the revision in view of the compromise effected between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of ₹70,000/- deposited before this Registry, is to be disbursed to the complainant/respondent No.1. It is ordered the

amount of ₹70,000/be disbursed to the complainant/respondent No.1 by remitting the same to his savings bank account on furnishing of the bank account details, if not furnished earlier. No other amount has been deposited before any other Court.

In view of these facts, the present revision is allowed and the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. on 25.11.2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2019 titled Hari Ram vs. Bhikham Ram, & another affirming the judgment of conviction dated 08.08.2019 and order of sentence dated 06.09.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. . in Criminal Complaint No. 238-1/2018/22-III/2019 titled Bhikham Ram vs. Hari Ram are ordered to be set aside.

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 March, 2026.

(ravinder)