State of H.P. vs Arun Kumar @Lucky. Cr.MP(M) No. 491 of 2025 Reserved on: 25.09.2025 28.10.2025 Present: Mr.Jitender K Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the applicant/appellant. Mr Arvind Sharma, Advocate for the respondent/accused Cr. MP (M) No. 491 of 2025 The applicant/appellant has filed a petition under section 419 (3) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 22.08.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the charged offences.(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the police filed a chargesheet against the accused before the learned Trial court for the commission of offences punishable and under Sections 354D, 504, 506, and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 2 (IPC), Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2012 (SC & ST Act) and section 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 3. The Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of offences punishable under section 354D, 504, 506 and 201 of the IPC, section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of SC& ST Act and section 12 of the POCSO Act. 4. The victim appeared before the learned Trial Court and stated that the accused used to stalk and bother her incessantly. He used to threaten her that he would do away with her life in case she did not marry him. She did not want to marry him, so he continued pestering her. She, the accused, and her father filed affidavits to withdraw the proceedings, and she did not want to proceed further. She had only made a complaint regarding stalking. 3 5. Learned Trial court held that the grievance of the victim was only regarding the stalking. She did not want to proceed with the matter regarding the stalking. No case was made out against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under section 354D, 504, 506 and 201 of the IPC, Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of SC & ST Act and Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The testimony of the victim, even if unrebutted, would not result in the conviction of the accused, and it was a case of no evidence. The dispute was purely personal in nature, and the court should accept the terms of the compromise. The victim had forgiven the accused, and the continuation of the proceedings against the accused was not justified. Hence, the accused was acquitted. 6. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed an application seeking leave to appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in holding that no case was made out against the accused. The victim specifically 4 stated that the accused used to stalk and threaten her. The offences punishable under the Special Act were not compoundable, and the accused could not have been acquitted because of the compromise between the parties. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and leave to appeal be granted. 7. I have heard Mr Jitender K Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the accused. 8. Mr Jitender K Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The victim’s testimony proved that the accused had stalked and threatened her. The statement proved the commission of offences punishable under sections 354D and 506 of the IPC. The accused could not have been discharged based on a compromise. The commission of offences punishable under Sections 354D and 201 of the IPC, section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) SC & ST Act and 5 section 12 of the POCSO Act are not compoundable, and the accused could not have been acquitted because the victim did not want to proceed further with the matter. Hence he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the leave to appeal be granted to the State. 9. Mr Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the accused, supported the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the prosecution; hence prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 10. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully 11. The victim specifically stated that the accused used to stalk and threaten her. This statement, prima facie establishes the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354D and 506 of the IPC. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the offence punishable under Section 354D is not 6 compoundable, and the accused could not have been acquitted because the victim and the accused had entered into a compromise with each other. Thus, there is sufficient material on record to grant leave to appeal to the State. 12 Consequently, the present application is allowed, and the leave to appeal is granted to the State. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal No. ___ of 2025 (Cr. Rev.S.T No. 13794 of 2024) 13. As per the order passed in the Cr.MP (M) No. 491 of 2025, leave to appeal has been granted to the State. Mr Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the accused, waives service of notice on behalf of the accused. The record has been received. 14. It be registered. 15. List the matter for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 28th October 2025 (ravinder)