IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP No. 1453 of 2026 in Cr. Revision No. 240 of 2022 Date of Decision: 21.05.2026. Virender Singh ...Applicant/Petitioner Versus Ajay Singh ...Non-applicant/Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant/Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Non-Applicant/Respondent : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral) Learned counsel for the applicant/convict has produced the receipt dated 11.05.2026, issued by Member Secretary, H.P. Legal Services Authority, Kasumpti, Shimla, regarding the deposit of ₹30,000/- being the 15% of the cheque amount of ₹2,50,000/-, which is taken on record. 2. The record shows that the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced by learned Judicial Magistrate First 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P. on 02.09.2019, in Criminal Case No. 53 of 2017, titled Ajay Singh Vs. Virender Singh, as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Una, District Una, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2019, titled Virender Singh Vs. Ajay Singh and this Court in Criminal Revision No.240 of 2022, titled Virender Singh Vs. Ajay Singh, dated 20.09.2024. 3. The Division Bench of this Court held in Chune Ram vs. Brikam Chand, 2025:HHC:38122 decided on 13.11.2025 that the Court can quash the conviction even after its finalization in criminal revision based on the compromise effected between the parties. This judgment is binding upon this Court. 4. In view of this judgment, the present petition is allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P. as affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Una, District Una, H.P. and this Court in Criminal Revision No. 240 of 2022 are ordered to be quashed. 5. It has been submitted that no amount has been deposited before the learned Trial Court or this Court. In view of 3 this, no order is required to be passed for the disbursal of the amount by this Court. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st May, 2026 (Nikita)