2025:HHC:39095 _______________ Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1009 of 2025 a/w Cr.Revision No. 650 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025 1. Cr. MMO No. 1009 of 2025 Lajma Kanwar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondent 2. Cr. Revision No.650 of 2025 Lajma Kanwar ... Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner(s) : Ms Reeta Goswami, Senior Advocate, with Ms Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, in both the petitions. For respondents : : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1 in CRMMO No.1009 of 2025 and for respondent/State in Cr. Revision No. of 2025. Mr Aditya Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 in Cr.MMO No. 1009 of 2025. 2 2025:HHC:39095 Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (oral) Cr. MMO No. 1009 of 2025 The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNNS), 2023, for quashing of F.I.R. No. 54 of 2012, dated 28.04.2012, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R. 2. It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties with the intervention of the respectable persons of the society. Hence, the present petition. 3. The statement of informant Rajinder Kumar Katoch was recorded on 06.11.2025, in which he stated that he had compromised the matter voluntarily without any influence from any person; therefore, he does not want to proceed further with the matter in view of the compromise. 3 2025:HHC:39095 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 5. In the present case, the F.I.R. was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 6. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 that the FIR can be quashed even after recording a conviction, provided the matter is pending before some Court. It was observed at page 640: 13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 CrPC are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub judice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may be before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the 4 2025:HHC:39095 basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow-hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s). 7. A similar view was taken in Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, wherein it was observed at page 539: “13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the fact that the trial has already been concluded or the appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. The societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 5 2025:HHC:39095 482CrPC would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard-and-fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482CrPC may lead to rigid or specious justice, which, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, para 29 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and Laxmi Narayan [State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, para 15 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706]. 8. This position was reiterated in Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 18 SCC 465: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1882, wherein it was observed at page 468: “8. Having examined the matter in its totality, it appears that the High Court, while disposing of the revision petition with the application moved by the parties, did not pause to consider that maintaining of conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-AIPC would not be securing the ends of justice and with such conviction being maintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again land itself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Respondent 2 6 2025:HHC:39095 both have reiterated their stand that they have resolved their disputes and are living together while leading a happy conjugal life. 11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and taking note of the terms of settlement as stated in the application moved before the High Court which include the undertaking of the appellant that he would be nominating Respondent 2 as the nominee in his service record; and where the parties are said to be leading a happy conjugal life, we are clearly of the view that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and quashed all the proceedings with annulment of the orders against the appellant. The High Court having not done so, we are inclined to adopt this course so as to secure the ends of justice.” 9. In view of the compromise, the present petition is allowed, and F.I.R. No.54 of 2012, dated 28.04.2012, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., is ordered to be quashed. Consequent upon the quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings pending/initiated against the petitioner-accused in pursuance thereof, are also ordered to be quashed. 10. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending applications, if any. 7 2025:HHC:39095 Cr.MP(M) No.2557 of 2025 11. The present application has been filed for the condonation of the delay in filing the revision. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that he does not want to file any reply to the application. 13. Considering the fact that the averments made in the application are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed, and the delay in filing the criminal revision is ordered to be condoned. 14. The application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 650 of 2025. 15. Since the delay in filing the revision petition has been condoned vide order passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2557 of 2025, hence, the present petition be registered. 16. The present petition arises out of the F.I.R. No.54 of 2012, dated 28.04.2012, registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC at Police Station Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., which has been quashed in Cr.MMO No. 1009 of 20205; hence, the present 8 2025:HHC:39095 petition has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. 17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 18. Parties are permitted to produce a copy of this judgment, downloaded from the webpage of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh before the authorities concerned, and the said authorities shall not insist on the production of a certified copy, but if required, may verify passing of the order from the Website of the High Court. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19th November 2025. (ravinder)