2025:HHC:38122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 188 of 2025 Reserved on: 1.1.2026 Date of Decision: 9.1.2026. ______________________________________ Chune Ram ...Petitioner Versus Brikam Chand another ...Respondents ______________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : M/s B.L. Soni and Nitin Soni, Advocates. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Yug Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ______________________________________ Rakesh Kainthla, Judge As per o昀케ce report, a sum of 3,750/- being 7.5% of the cheque amount, has been deposited with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla pursuant to the order dated 9.12.2025. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, under instructions, submits that the matter has been reconciled 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:38122 between the parties and he has no objection in case the present petition is allowed. 3. It was held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 15.9.2025 that the Court can quash the conviction based on the compromise between the parties at any stage of the proceedings even after the conviction has been 昀椀nalized by the Court. Thus, in view of the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court as a昀케rmed by the learned First Appellate Court as well as this Court, the same be quashed after the parties have entered into a compromise. 4. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, District Kullu, HP, in Criminal Complaint No. 870/19/2014 as a昀케rmed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2022, dated 9.9.2022 and upheld by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 567 of 2022, dated 12.9.2024 are ordered to be quashed. 5. It has been submitted that 20% of the cheque amount has been deposited before the learned Trial Court, which is to be 3 2025:HHC:38122 disbursed to the petitioner. In view of this, the 20% of the cheque amount, deposited before the learned Trial Court is ordered to be refunded to the respondent/complainant on furnishing of the bank details, if not furnished earlier by remitting the same to his bank account under proper receipt and identi昀椀cation. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 9th January, 2026 (Chander)