IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 3587 of 2025 in Cr. Revision No. 192 of 2025 Date of Decision: 10.9.2026. Deepak Sharma ...Petitioner Versus Rajender Prashad (since deceased) through his LRs & ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ritu, Advocate, vice Mr. Mohan Singh, 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 6.8.2026, issued by Member Secretary, H.P. Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla, regarding the deposit of ₹3,000/- being the 15% of the cheque amount of ₹20,000/-, which is taken on record. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 3. The record shows that the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced by learned Trial Court. The petitioner/accused unsuccessfully challenged his conviction and sentence before learned First Appellate Court and before this Court in Cr. Revision No. 192 of 2025 titled Deepak Sharma Vs. Rajinder Prashad (since deceased) through LRs and others. 4. The Division Bench of this Court held in Chune Ram vs. Brikam Chand, 2025:HHC:38122 decided on 13.11.2025 that the Court can quash the conviction even after its finalization in criminal revision based on the compromise effected between the parties. This judgment is binding upon this Court. 5. In view of this judgment, the present petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court as affirmed by learned Appellate Court and by this Court in Cr. Revision No. 192 of 2025 titled Deepak Sharma Vs. Rajinder Prashad (since deceased) through LRs and others are ordered to be quashed. 6. It has been submitted that no amount has been deposited before the learned Trial Court or this Court. In view of 3 this statement, no order is required to be passed for the disbursal of the amount by this Court. 7. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10th September, 2026 (Chander)