Pawan Kumar Vs. State of H.P. Cr.A. No. 402 of 2024 16.09.2026 Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. Ms. Abidha Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the applicant in Cr.MP No. 3973 of 2026. Cr. MP No. 3973 of 2026 This application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-complainant alongwith a draft settlement deed with a prayer to take on record the settlement proposed to be arrived at between the parties, and also to call the applicant/prosecutrix/complainant to make a statement before the Court regarding the voluntary nature of the settlement, if so required. A further prayer has been made to direct production of the convict before this Court for signing the settlement agreement and to permit him to consent to the said settlement agreement. It has also been prayed that the subsequent developments and the voluntary stand of the applicant- prosecutrix be taken into consideration while adjudicating the pending criminal appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has no role in filing of the application on behalf of the applicant-complainant and has no link with the prayers made therein. He further submits that an earlier application, i.e. Cr.MP No. 3806 of 2024, filed by the applicant on the basis of compromise was also dismissed by this Court on 23.10.2024, on the basis version of applicant-complainant recorded in said order regarding the said compromise. Reasons for filing this application as stated are that the applicant-complainant sees no reason for the present proceedings to continue as she wants to move ahead from the past events in life and wants to achieve her ambitions for better future and dark clouds of the past events have somehow left her trapped from leading a better life which she finally wants to overcome by this compromise. The aforesaid plea is self-contradictory, as it is not the applicant-prosecutrix who is under the dark cloud of the past events, rather, it is the appellant who is facing conviction and sentence on ac- count of his act and conduct. It is also noticeable that compromise is yet to be stated to be arrived at between the parties. Though, it is also doubtful that in given facts and circumstances of the case, as to whether compounding/compromise between the parties would be permissible or not. However, as on date, there is no settlement agreement in existence between the applicant/complainant with the appellant. In view of above, we do not find any merit for accepting the prayer made in the application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. ( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge ( Bhupesh Sharma ) Judge 16th September, 2026 (sushma)