SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8351

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
SUKHWINDER SINGH PARMAR – Appellant
Versus
RAMA SOOD – Respondent
CR.R/72/2014



Petitioner Advocates:RAHUL MAHAJAN ,Respondent Advocate:RESPONDENT RAMAN KUMAR, RAJEEV SOOD, ANITA SHARMA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 72 of 2014 Date of Decision: 12.11.2025.

Sukhwinder Singh Parmar f...Petitioner Versus Rama Sood ...Respondent Coram u Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Rajeev Sood, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral):

Mr. Rajeev Sood, learned counsel for the respondent /complainant, under instructions, submits that the matter has been compromised between the parties, therefore, he does not want to proceed with the present complaint filed by her.

2. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kishore S. Brocar and another (2025) SCC Online SC 2069, the petitioner was directed to deposit 7.5% of the cheque amount.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

3. Accordingly, the petitioner/accused has produced the copy of receipt of ₹5,250/- being 7.5% of the cheque amount of ₹70,000/-, issued by Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla.

4. Since the matter has been reconciled between the parties and the complainant does not want to proceed further with the present complaint, therefore, the revision is allowed and the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 /2010, titled Sukhwinder Singh Parmar Vs. Rama Sood, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.6.2010, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.III, Una, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No. 136-II-05, titled Rama Sood Vs. Sukhwinder Singh Parmar are ordered to be set aside.

5. It has been submitted that the amount of ₹70,000/- has been deposited before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Una, HP. Let the same be disbursed to the complainant as per the compromise effected between the parties.

6. It has further been submitted that no other amount has been deposited in any other Court.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any (Rakesh Kainthla)

Judge

12th November, 2025 (Chander)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top