2026:HHC:10809 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 929 of 2025 with Cr. Appeal No. 234 of 2012 Reserved on: 10.03.2026 Date of Decision: 08.4.2026. 1. Cr. MMO No. 929 of 2025 Sandeep Kumar & Anr ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and another ...Respondents 2. Cr. Appeal No. 234 of 2012 Sandeep Kumar & Anr. ..Appellants Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Mr Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No.2 : Mr Hakam Bhardwaj, Advocate, in Cr.MMO No. 929 of 2025. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:10809 Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The appellants/accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Appellate Court) for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, they were acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Since Section 324 of IPC was a graver offence, hence, no separate conviction was recorded for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC. Aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused have preferred the present appeal. 2. The parties reconciled the matter during the pendency of the appeal, the informant/victim Chetan Bhatia made a statement before this Court on 19.11.2025 that he had entered into a compromise with the accused voluntarily without any influence from any person, and he did not want to proceed further with the FIR lodged by him after the compromise. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in Suraj Singh Gujar v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2414 that the conviction recorded 3 2026:HHC:10809 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC can be quashed by taking recourse to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the compromise is effected voluntarily between the parties. 4. The statement made by the informant/victim on oath shows that the compromise was voluntary and without any influence. Therefore, the compromise is accepted, and the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2012 and the order of sentence dated 28.05.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 30-P/VII-2009 titled State of H.P. versus Sandeep Kumar and another are ordered to be set aside. The accused/appellants are acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC because of the compromise having been effected between the informant and the appellants. 5. The present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 6. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned with the copy of this Order. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 8th April, 2026 (Nikita)