The court, following a recent Division Bench judgment, allowed the applicant's petition to quash his conviction and sentence. The order also directed the remittance of the deposited compromise amount to the complainant.
Conviction and sentence quashed; sum of ₹2,15,000 ordered to be disbursed to the complainant.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. MP No. 181 of 2026 in Cr. Revision No. 797 of 2024 Date of Decision: 3.3.2026.
Sita Ram ...Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Baldev Chand ...Non-applicant/Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
: For the Applicant/Petitioner Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate vice Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Non-Applicant/Respondent : Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral)
Learned counsel for the applicant/convict has produced the receipt dated 27.2.2026, issued by Member Secretary, H.P. Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla, regarding the deposit of ₹37,500/- being the 15% of the cheque amount of ₹2,50,000/-, which is taken on record.
1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
3
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a conviction and sentence finalized in criminal revision can be quashed based on a compromise between parties.
Whether the deposited compromise amount should be remitted to the complainant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chune Ram vs. Brikam ChandFollowed¶15
Chune Ram vs. Brikam Chand, 2025:HHC:38122
Sita Ram
Baldev Chand
Rakesh Kainthla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
