1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 464 of 2024 Decided on : 29.8.2025 State of H.P. … Appellant Versus Prakash Chand & others. …Respondents _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ___________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Ms. Ranjna Patial, Dy. A.G. For the Respondents : Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Ms. Shivani Tegta, Advocate, for applicant/proposed respondent No. 4. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) Cr. MP No. 3834 of 2025 By way of present application, permission has been sought to implead complainant Rakesh Kumar Malik, who has put criminal machinery into motion by lodging FIR No. 135, dated 13.7.2020, under Sections 447, 504, 355, 341 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(g)(r)(s), 3(2) 2 (va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), as respondent No. 4, in the present case. 2. Application has been filed on the ground that respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4/applicant are immediate neighbours and want to maintain their cordial relations. 3. In view of above, a prayer has been made to implead the complainant, as proforma respondent No. 4. 4. Although, reply has not been filed, but prayer made in the application, has been opposed by tooth and nail, on the ground that complainant has no right to be impleaded, in the present appeal, as order, by virtue of which, respondents No. 1 to 3, were acquitted, by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. has been assailed by way of present appeal, for which, leave to file the appeal has been sought. 5. In this case, record has been received. Perusal of the record shows that the learned trial Court has framed charges under Sections 447, 504, 355, 341 of IPC and 3 Sections 3(1)(g)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), against the respondents No. 1 to 3. 6. Thereafter, prosecution was directed to adduce the evidence. The prosecution has examined, as many as, six witnesses. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. has acquitted the respondent, vide order dated 8.8.2024. 7. The judgment of acquittal has mainly been passed on the ground that applicant Rakesh Kumar Malik has submitted before the learned trial Court that in case, accused persons undertake not to repeat the same activities, in future, he would not press the complaint, before the learned trial Court, upon which, respondents No. 1 to 3, who were accused before the learned trial Court, gave an undertaking that they will not indulge in such activities, either themselves, or through their family. 8. On the basis of such undertaking, order of acquittal has been passed, by the learned trial Court. 4 9. Although, the applicant/State has preferred the appeal against the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court, however, application seeking leave to appeal is still pending. 10. When, the person, who has put criminal machinery swung into motion by lodging the FIR, made a statement, before the learned trial Court, and the grievances of the complainant have duly been redressed by respondents No. 1 to 3/accused persons, by giving an undertaking not to repeat the same behaviour, in future, the applicant is able to make out a case, for allowing the application, which has been filed, mainly on the ground of compromise, between the parties. 11. Consequently, the application, under consideration is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be impleaded as proforma respondent No. 4, in the present case. 12. Amended memo of parties has been annexed with the application. The same be taken on record. 5 Cr. MP(M)No. 464 of 2025 13. By way of present application, leave to appeal has been sought by the applicant/State to file the appeal, against the judgment of acquittal, dated 8.8.2024, passed by the learned trial Court. 14. In view of the compromise, effected between the parties, Cr.MMO No. 796 of 2025, has been filed, which was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order of the even date, as the same was held to be not maintainable, in view of acquittal order, passed by the learned trial Court, for which, permission to assail, has been sought by way of present application. 15. Respondent No. 4, by way of Cr.M.P.No. 3834 of 2025 has submitted that now the matter has been compromised between the parties. Photo copy of the compromise has been annexed with the application. 16. In order to judge the authenticity of the compromise, statements of respondent No. 4, as well as, respondents No. 1 to 3, who were accused before the learned trial Court, have been recorded, separately. 6 17. In view of the statements of the respondents, coupled with the compromise, Annexure-A1, this Court is of the view that the matter has now been settled between the parties and no fruitful purpose would be served by granting the leave to appeal to the applicant/State, as the primary purpose of the law is to maintain peace and harmony in society. 18. When, the parties to the dispute have already settled the matter, then, the efforts made by them, should be recognized by the Court. 19. Consequently, requisite leave to appeal is declined. 20. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. (Virender Singh) Judge 29.8.2025 Kalpana