IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1009 of 2025 a/w Cr.Revision No. 650 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.11.2025

1. Cr. MMO No. 1009 of 2025 Lajma Kanwar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & anr. …Respondent

2. Cr. Revision No.650 of 2025 Lajma Kanwar ... Petitioner Versus State of H.P.

....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whet her approved for reporting?

For the petitioner(s) : Ms Reeta Goswami, Senior Advocate, with Ms Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, in both the petitions.

For respondents : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, : for respondent No.1 in CRMMO No.1009 of 2025 and for respondent/State in Cr.

Revision No. of 2025.

Mr Aditya Kaushal, Advocate, for respondent No.2 in Cr.MMO No. 1009 of 2025.

_______________

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (oral)

Cr. MMO No. 1009 of 2025 The present petition has been filed under Section

528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNNS), 2023, for quashing of F.I.R. No. 54 of 201 2, dated 28.04.2012, registered for the commissioon of an offence punishable under Section 420 of India n Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station Baijnath, Distrrict Kangra, H.P. and consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R.

2. It has been asserted that the matter has been compromised between the parties with the intervention of hthe respectable persons of the society. Hence, the present gpetition.

3. The statement of informant Rajinder Kumar Katoch was recorded on 06.11.2025, in which he stated that he had compromised the matter voluntarily without any influence from any person; therefore, he does not want to proceed further with the matter in view of the compromise.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. .

5. In the present case, the F.I.R. was registered for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The offence punishable und er Section 420 of IPC is compoundable under Sectiono 320 of Cr.P.C.

6. 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 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 CrPC are exercisable in post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the H 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 fide. 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 buft to do complete justice by effecting genuineo settlement(s).

7. 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 pauge 539:

“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 i evenly is always sub