STATE OF HP(Not Applicable) AG vs Mahesh(Not Applicable) Advocate - Rajesh Kumar, ,Vishal Verma — CRMMO/1200/2025
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 25th March 2026.
CNR: HPHC010768782025
e-Filing Number
04-11-2025
Filing Number
CRMMO/11629/2025
Filing Date
08-Dec-2025
Registration No
CRMMO/1200/2025
Registration Date
08-Dec-2025
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
25-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Disposed Off
Last updated 14-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF HP(Not Applicable) AG
Respondent(s)
-
1.Mahesh(Not Applicable) Advocate - Rajesh Kumar, ,Vishal Verma
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
25-Mar-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep SharmaView PDF
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the lower court's order allowing compounding of a criminal case (Section 407 IPC - criminal breach of trust) between forwarding agent Mahesh Kumar and the respondent, finding no illegality. The court reasoned that since the FIR was filed by the direct complainant who subsequently compromised with the accused, and the actual aggrieved apple growers were not parties to the case, the magistrate properly accepted the compounding application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Mar-2026
Admission After Notice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
-
31-Dec-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF
-
31-Dec-2025
Notice Before Admission
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh
-
10-Dec-2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender SinghView PDF
-
10-Dec-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
08-Dec-2025
Case filed
Registration No. CRMMO/1200/2025
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh upheld the lower court's order allowing compounding of a criminal case (Section 407 IPC - criminal breach of trust) between forwarding agent Mahesh Kumar and the respondent, finding no illegality. The court reasoned that since the FIR was filed by the direct complainant who subsequently compromised with the accused, and the actual aggrieved apple growers were not parties to the case, the magistrate properly accepted the compounding application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts