Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 200

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Baldev Raj And Another - Appellants
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No.119 of 2017
Decided On : 31-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Kiran Negi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.
SI Inder Singh, IO, PS Palampur, present in person along with record.

High Court can quash post-conviction for non-heinous private offences like grievous hurt upon family compromise using inherent powers to ensure harmony and justice.

Headnote:(A) IPC - Sections 307, 325 read with 34 - Cr.P.C. - Sections 374, 482 - BNSS, 2023 - Section 528 - Criminal appeal challenging conviction for voluntarily causing grievous hurt after acquittal under attempt to murder - Post-conviction compromise between closely related parties - High Court exercising inherent powers can accept compromise and quash conviction even post-trial if it fosters harmony, offence non-heinous and predominantly private in nature. (Paras 5, 9-11, 17-18)

(B) Inherent powers distinguishable from compounding under Section 320 - Exercisable sparingly for non-serious offences without societal impact like murder or rape - Guidelines require evaluating offence gravity, settlement circumstances, accused conduct to secure ends of justice. (Paras 12-16)

Facts of the case:
Dispute over compassionate employment claim during family ceremony escalated into altercation resulting in assault causing unconsciousness; trial court convicted for grievous hurt with two years imprisonment and fine, acquitted under attempt to murder; one appellant died during appeal abating proceedings against him; post-conviction compromise filed with statements from victim's family expressing no further interest in prosecution; appellant suffers from schizophrenia.

Findings of Court:
Compromise accepted as parties resolved dispute amicably; conviction and sentence quashed; appellant acquitted of charges.

Issues: Whether post-conviction compromise can be accepted to quash judgment of conviction for offence under Section 325 read with 34 IPC? Whether inherent powers applicable post-trial conclusion for non-heinous offences?

Ratio Decidendi: Offence under Section 325 read with 34 compoundable and non-heinous; family-related private dispute; amicable settlement post-conviction permissible under inherent powers if it promotes peace without undermining justice, distinguishing from heinous crimes affecting society.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. family dispute over job causes assault conviction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. post-conviction compromise filed by relatives. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. prosecution opposes quashing post-conviction. (Para 8)
4. inherent powers allow post-conviction quashing. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. quash non-heinous private offences on settlement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. conviction quashed accepting amicable compromise. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. lays challenge to the judgment dated 28.03.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Session Trial No.30/2006, and S.C. No.33-P/VII/06, whereby afore Court though acquitted the appellants-accused under Section 307 of the IPC, but sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of two years and pay fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each for their having committed offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the .

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that Challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. came to be filed against two accused namely Baldev Raj and Lekh Raj (appellants herein) under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC alleging therein that father of both the accused died in September, 2005 and his Kriya Ceremony was fixed for 28.09.2005. One Murli Ram, whose daughter had been married to the elder brother of the accused namely Atma Ram, came to the house of the accused to participate in the Kriya Ceremony on 28.09.2005, accompanied by two other persons from his village. Unfortunately, some oral altercation took place inter se accused and afore person namely Murli Ram, regarding employment on compassionate grounds on account of death of Kirpa Ram, father of accused. Mother of both the accused was claiming that service on compassionate grounds should be given to one of the accused namely Lekh Raj, whereas wife of her elder son Atma Ram, who is daughter of Murli Ram, was saying that job should be provided to her husband Atma Ram. Allegedly, both the accused administered beatings to Saroj Kumari and Murli Ram, however, on the intervention of maternal uncle of the accused, matter was settled. While afore Murli Ram along with his two other companions had left the house fo the accused and had reached near the gate of house of the accused, Murli Ram heard cries of his daughter Saroj Kumari, who was allegedly again given beatings by accused. Murli Ram attempted to rescue his daughter, but both the accused came forward and attacked him, as a result thereof, he fell unconscious. In the afore background, case under and 34 of came to be registered against both the accused.

3. Trial Court on the basis of pleadings as well as evidence adduced on record by the prosecution though acquitted both the accused under Section 307 of the IPC, but held them guilty of offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the and accordingly convicted and sentenced them, as per description given hereinabove. In the afore background, accused approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for their acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Court below.

4. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that one of the accused, namely Lekh Raj, died during the pendency of the present appeal and as such, instant appeal qua him has abated. Respondent- State has also not filed appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 307 of IPC and as such, judgment of acquittal under aforesaid section has attained finality.

5. Before appeal at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, an application bearing Cr.MP No.5221 of 2025 came to be filed under Section 528 of the BNS, 2023, seeking therein permission to place on record additional documents i.e. compromise arrived inter se parties, whereby both the parties have resolved to s