1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43199 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 4056 of 2013 Date of Decision: 11.12.2025 ________________________________________________ Ilachi Prasad ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent _________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent/State: Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Additional Advocate General. ________________________________________________ Sushil Kukreja, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment dated 05.07.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2008, whereby judgment of conviction, dated 11.07.2008, and order of sentence, dated 25.07.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No. 76-II/05, was affirmed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43199 ) 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution story, are that on 10.03.2003, around 08:30 p.m., accused-Ilachi Prasad (petitioner herein) entered in the courtyard of complainant’s house and started abusing him and others. The accused was complaining that on 09.03.2003 an important telephonic call was for him in the complainant’s house, but no one called him, consequently he suffered loss of Rs.1.50 lacs. The complainant and others asked the accused to get a telephone installed in his house, but, in turn, he took out knife and stabbed Pawan Kumar (brother of the complainant-Arun Kumar) and when the complainant tired to rescue his brother, accused thrashed him too. On hearing the noise, Pyar Chand and Prithvi Chand came on the spot and Pyar Chand snatched the knife from the accused and threw it towards the house of the accused. Subsequently, villagers, including Kamal came there and took the injured to the nearest hospital and the Medical Officer gave telephonic information to the police at Police Station, Joginder Nagar, whereupon police visited the hospital and got recorded the statement of injured-Arun (complainant). FIR under the apt Sections of IPC was registered and during the investigation, police prepared the 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43199 ) spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Police also collected scientific samples for analysis and effected relevant recoveries. The accused was arrested on 11.03.2003 and on the subsequent day he made a confessional statement to the police qua concealment of knife used by him in committing the alleged crime and he got recovered the knife from his room. The medico legal certificates of both injured persons were obtained by the police and as per the medico legal certificate of injured Pawan, he sustained grievous and simple injuries and injured Arun Kumar sustained simple injuries with sharp edged substance and one injury was caused with blunt weapon. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, on conclusion of the trial, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 323 and 447 IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/- for each offence. He was also convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-. Lastly, the accused was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43199 ) Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine the accused/convict was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days on each count. The accused/convict, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal against the judgment of the learned Trial Court, before the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., however, the same was dismissed, hence the instant petition preferred by the accused-petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the instant petition, the accused/convict/petitioner moved an application (Cr.MP No. 2926 of 2025) with the prayer to place on record compromise, dated 23.06.2025, entered into between the parties, wherein the complainant party stated that they have no objection in case the allegations leveled by them are set- aside, as they have agreed to live peacefully and amicably in future and wanted cordial relations with each other. 4. On 10.10.2025, the complainant-Arun Kumar as well as the injured Pawan Kumar were present in person and their statements were separately recorded and placed on the file. 5. The complainant-Arun Kumar in his statement stated that on the basis of his complaint, FIR No. 48 of 2003, dated 11.03.2003, under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 451 of 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43199 ) IPC was registered against the petitioner/accused Ilachi Prasad and vide judgment of conviction, dated 11.07.2008, and order of sentence, dated 25.07.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., the petitioner/accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 447, 323, 324 and 326 IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 447 of IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, which was further affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., vide judgment dated 05.07.2013. He further stated that now during the pendency of the instant revision petition, on the intervention of the respectable persons of the society, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute. Copy of the compromise deed, dated 23.06.2025, is annexed with Cr.MP No. 2926 of 2025, as Annexure A-1. As per the compromise, both the parties have agreed to bury their differences and 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43199 ) have no further grievances against each other in respect of the alleged incident which forms the subject matter of the present revision petition. Therefore, he has no objection in case the criminal proceedings filed against the accused Ilachi Prasad are closed and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 323, 324 and 326 IPC. 6. Similarly, Shri Pawan Kumar (injured/brother of the complainant) also stated what has been stated by complainant-Arun Kumar. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent/State and also gone through the material available on record. 8. In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation, including Section 320 Cr.PC, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43199 ) definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offences like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim’s family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is held to be exercisable for quashing criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominately civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society. 9. Further, the Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbhathbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and others vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641, 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43199 ) summarizing the broad principles regarding inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. has recognized that these powers are not inhibited by provisions of Section 320 Cr.PC. 10. In case Narinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 and also in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan and others, (2019) 5 SCC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summed up and laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings. 11. In Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized and advised that in the matter of compromise in criminal proceedings, keeping in view the nature of the case, to save the time of the Court for utilizing to decide more effective and meaningful litigation, a common sense approach, based on 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43199 ) ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of law, should be applied. 12. In the instant case, since the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, therefore, keeping in view the nature of the offence, I am of the considered view that no fruitful purpose will be served to continue the proceedings against petitioners/accused, as continuation of the proceedings will be an exercise in futility. The justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored in order to maintain harmonious relations/atmosphere between them. 13. Hence, considering the facts and the circumstances of the case in entirety, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed for securing the ends of justice and, therefore, the same is allowed. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction, dated 11.07.2008, and order of sentence dated, dated 25.07.2008, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Police Challan No. 76-II/05, and also the judgment dated 05.07.2013, in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2008, whereby the judgment of learned Trial Court was upheld are ordered to be quashed and set-aside and the 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:43199 ) petitioner/accused is acquitted from all the charges framed against him. 14. Petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds of the petitioner-accused shall stand cancelled. ( Sushil Kukreja ) 11th December, 2025 Judge (virender)