In a brief but quietly significant hearing at the Himachal Pradesh High Court on Thursday, Justice Sushil Kukreja brought closure to a 22-year-old neighbourhood feud, quashing earlier convictions against Ilachi Prasad after the injured parties confirmed they had reconciled. The matter, which once involved allegations of a heated quarrel, a knife attack, and hospital visits, ended with what the judge called a “restoration of peace” between villagers.
Background
The case had its origins in March 2003, when a small dispute over a missed telephone call allegedly spiraled into violence. According to the prosecution, Prasad entered the complainant’s courtyard one evening, angry that he hadn’t been informed about an important call that he believed cost him substantial money. Voices rose, tempers flared, and suddenly, as witnesses later told the court, a knife appeared. Pawan Kumar, the complainant’s brother, suffered both simple and grievous injuries, while the complainant Arun Kumar also received minor wounds.
The trial court convicted Prasad under multiple IPC sections-323, 324, 326, and 447-and handed down both fines and simple imprisonment. His appeal before the Sessions Court failed in 2013. The long-running revision petition before the High Court then remained pending until the parties unexpectedly reached a compromise in June 2025.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, both Arun and Pawan told the judge directly that they no longer wished to pursue the case. They filed a written compromise, noting that villagers and elders had stepped in and encouraged them to resolve the matter amicably. As Arun put it, they had agreed not only to “bury differences” but also to ensure no bitterness lingered.
Justice Kukreja referenced several Supreme Court rulings-including Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Parbatbhai Aahir-to explain when criminal cases may be quashed despite being non-compoundable. The bench observed, “The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC are to secure the ends of justice, particularly where the dispute is personal and continuation of proceedings would serve no meaningful purpose.”
He also underscored that these powers cannot be used in cases involving heinous crimes, but neighbourhood disputes with a “predominantly personal flavour” can justifiably be ended when parties genuinely reconcile. The judge hinted that dragging such matters endlessly only clogs courts and strains community relationships. At one point he remarked that insisting on continuing the trial now would be an “exercise in futility,” especially when victims themselves wanted closure.
Decision
After assessing the statements, the compromise deed, and the applicable legal principles, the High Court allowed Prasad’s revision petition. Justice Kukreja ordered that the 2008 conviction, the consequential sentence, and the 2013 appellate affirmation all stand quashed. “The petitioner is acquitted of all the charges framed against him,” the court declared, ending the two-decade legal journey. The judge also cancelled the bail bonds, closing the matter entirely.
Case Title: Ilachi Prasad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Type: Criminal Revision Petition
Case Number: Cr. Revision No. 4056 of 2013
Date of Judgment/Order: 11 December 2025
