IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 455 of 2023 Date of Decision: 31.7.2026. Rishi Raj Jamwal ...Petitioner Versus Satish Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Surender Verma, 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 11.6.2026, issued by Member Secretary, H.P. Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla, regarding the deposit of ₹45,000/- being the 15% of the cheque amount of ₹3,00,000/-, which is taken on record. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, under instructions, submits that the matter has been reconciled between the parties and she has instructions not to press the complaint. 4. In view of this statement, the present revision is allowed and the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.104 of 2022, titled Rishi Raj Vs. Satish Kumar affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2.7.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. in Case No. 158 of 2016, titled Satish Kumar Vs. Rishi Raj are ordered to be set aside and the complaint is dismissed as not pressed. 5. 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 order is required to be passed for the disbursal of the amount by this Court. 6. In view of the above, the present revision is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 31st July, 2026 (Chander)