IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 387 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.07.2026 Ramesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Kusum Kumar ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Kiran Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Khem Raj, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (oral) Case called again: In compliance to the order of even date, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an amount ₹22,500/-, which is 7.5% of the cheque amount of ₹3,00,000/- has been deposited and a receipt issued by the Member Secretary, H.P. Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. to this effect has been filed, which is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent under instructions, submits that the complainant/respondent does not 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 want to proceed further with the complaint in view of the compromise effected between the parties. 3. In view of above, present revision petition is allowed and the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) in Cr. Appeal No. 649 of 2025, decided on 04.04.2026 affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.10.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) passed in a complaint bearing CIS registration No.101 of 2019, decided on 19.10.2024 are ordered to be set aside and the complaint is dismissed as not pressed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no amount has been deposited before the learned Courts below or before this Court. 5. In view of the above, the present revision is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10.07.2026 (ravinder)