IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 3326 of 2026 in Cr. Revision No. 356 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.8.2026. Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Narayan Singh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) It has been stated on behalf of the respondent/complainant that the matter has been reconciled between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the receipt dated 11.8.2026, issued by Member Secretary, H.P. Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla, regarding the deposit of ₹90,000/- being the 15% of the cheque amount of ₹6,00,000/-, which is taken on record. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 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. 356 of 2026 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. Narayan Singh. 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 :nalization in criminal revision based on the compromise e<ected 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 a=rmed by learned Appellate Court and by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 356 of 2026 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. Narayan Singh are ordered to be quashed. 6. It has been submitted that a sum of ₹1,70,000/- has been deposited in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. which has to be disbursed to the respondent/complainant in term of the compromise. Let the 3 amount of ₹1,70,000/-, deposited in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. are ordered to be disbursed to the respondent/complainant, along with up to date interest, by remitting the same to its bank account on furnishing of the bank account details, if not furnished earlier. 7. It has been submitted that no other amount has been deposited before the learned Trial Court or this Court. In view of this statement, no other order is required to be passed for the disbursal of the amount by this Court. 8. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 11th August, 2026 (Chander)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 3326 of 2026 in Cr. Revision No. 356 of 2026 Date of Decision: 11.8.2026. Sanjay Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Narayan Singh ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) It has been stated on behalf of the respondent/complainant that the matter has been reconciled between the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the receipt dated 11.8.2026, issued by Member Secretary, H.P. Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla, regarding the deposit of ₹90,000/- being the 15% of the cheque amount of ₹6,00,000/-, which is taken on record. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 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. 356 of 2026 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. Narayan Singh. 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 :nalization in criminal revision based on the compromise e<ected 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 a=rmed by learned Appellate Court and by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 356 of 2026 titled Sanjay Kumar Vs. Narayan Singh are ordered to be quashed. 6. It has been submitted that a sum of ₹1,70,000/- has been deposited in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. which has to be disbursed to the respondent/complainant in term of the compromise. Let the 3 amount of ₹1,70,000/-, deposited in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. are ordered to be disbursed to the respondent/complainant, along with up to date interest, by remitting the same to its bank account on furnishing of the bank account details, if not furnished earlier. 7. It has been submitted that no other amount has been deposited before the learned Trial Court or this Court. In view of this statement, no other order is required to be passed for the disbursal of the amount by this Court. 8. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 11th August, 2026 (Chander)