2026:HHC:20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 199 of 2014 Reserved on: 19.12.2025 Date of Decision: 1.1.2026. Tejinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of HP ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. For the Victim : Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Shimla, HP, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced as under: Under Section 341 of IPC To pay fine of ₹500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:20 Under Section 354 of IPC To suffer simple imprisonment for three months, pay a fine of ₹1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 15 days. Under Section 506 of IPC To suffer simple imprisonment for three months, pay a fine of ₹500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 7 days. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. 2. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, HP vide judgment dated 6.6.2014. He has filed the present revision assailing the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below. 3. During the pendency of the revision, the informant Bishan Dass Gautam appeared before the Court on 18.11.2025 and stated that he had compromised the matter with the petitioner/accused voluntarily without any influence from any person and he has no objection in case the FIR is ordered to be quashed based on the compromise effected between the parties. 3 2026:HHC:20 4. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar v. State of M.P., (2022) 13 SCC 635: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 that the FIR can be quashed even after recording a conviction, provided that the matter is pending before some Court. It was observed at page 640: “13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.PC are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is sub judice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may be before the final Court, is sine qua non to involve the superior court's plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fides. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollow- hearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).” 5. A similar view was taken in Ramgopal v. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 834, wherein it was observed at page 539: 4 2026:HHC:20 “13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature can be annulled irrespective of the fact that the trial has already been concluded or the appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. The societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extraordinary power under Section 482CrPC would be to secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard-and-fast line constricting the power of the High Court to do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of inherent powers under Section 482CrPC may lead to rigid or specious justice, which, in the given facts and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where heinous offences have been proved against perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as cautiously observed by this Court in  Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 6 SCC 466, para 29 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, (2019) 5 SCC 688, para 15 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 706]. 6. This position was reiterated in Rajendra Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 18 SCC 465: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1882, wherein it was observed at page 468: “8. Having examined the matter in its totality, it appears that the High Court, while disposing of the revision petition with the application moved by the parties, did 5 2026:HHC:20 not pause to consider that maintaining of conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 498-AIPC would not be securing the ends of justice and with such conviction being maintained and the appellant losing his job, the family would again land itself in financial distress which may ultimately operate adverse to the harmony and happy conjugal life of the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Respondent 2 both have reiterated their stand that they have resolved their disputes and are living together while leading a happy conjugal life. 11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and taking note of the terms of settlement as stated in the application moved before the High Court which include the undertaking of the appellant that he would be nominating Respondent 2 as the nominee in his service record; and where the parties are said to be leading a happy conjugal life, we are clearly of the view that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and quashed all the proceedings with annulment of the orders against the appellant. The High Court having not done so, we are inclined to adopt this course so as to secure the ends of justice.” 7. Thus, it is permissible for the Court to quash the conviction based on the compromise effected between the parties during the pendency of the Revision Petition. 8. Learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of offences punishable under Section 354 and 506 of IPC. Section 506 of IPC is compoundable under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 6 2026:HHC:20 9. This Court had already quashed the F.I.R. under Section 354 of IPC in Vidya Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others 2022 STPL 13724 HP, Chaman Lal vs State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (1) 213, Ameen vs State of Himachal Pradesh & others, 2023(1) Him. L.R. 375 and Rakesh Verma vs State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2022 (HP) (2) 952 based on compromise, and these judgments are binding upon this Court. 10. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 159 of 2008, dated 28.6.2008, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 506 Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station (West) Boileauganj and consequent proceedings pending against the petitioner/accused in pursuance thereto are ordered to be quashed. The fine amount, if deposited be refunded to the petitioner after the expiry of the limitation for filing an appeal, in case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 11. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 7 2026:HHC:20 12. A copy of this judgment along with records of the learned Courts below be transmitted forthwith. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 1st January, 2026 (Chander)