Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2366 (ALL)

Nand Lal Pandey v. State of U. P.

2019-10-18

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. 2. Sri Arun Kumar Pandey has filed 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of opposite party no. 2, same is taken on record. 3. By means of this petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has assailed the proceedings of Special Trial No. 673/2017, State vs. Nand Lal Pandey relating to Case Crime No. 357A/2016 u/s 504 Indian Penal Code and 3(1) X SC/ST Act, P.S. Government Railway Police, District Lucknow pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Lucknow. The charge-sheet no. 238/2017 dated 8.9.2017 has also been assailed. Both the aforesaid proceedings have been assailed on the basis of the fact that the parties in dispute have entered into the compromise deed. Earlier the petitioner has filed a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 2688/2019 and this Court vide order dated 11.4.2019 disposed of the said petition directing the learned court-below to verify the compromise if it is entered into between the parties and pass appropriate orders after verification of the compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards Annexure no. 2 which is a compromise deed between the parties and have also annexed Annexure no. 3 which is an order dated 11.6.2019 passed by the learned court below whereby it has been observed that since the offence under SC/ST Act are not compoundable in nature, therefore, offence may not be compounded on the basis of compromise. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court towards the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675 whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. have no limits. It further held that while invoking such extraordinary jurisdiction utmost precaution is required keeping in mind that the petitioner has sought the charge-sheet to be quashed on the basis of compromise. In par 8 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment the court has held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, section 320 would not be a bar to exercise of power of quashing. In par 8 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment the court has held that if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of F.I.R. becomes necessary, section 320 would not be a bar to exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. Thus, the High Court in its exercise of its inherent power can quash criminal proceedings or F.I.R. or complaint and section 320 of the Court does not limit or take the power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid legal position. 6. Since the parties of the issue have entered into a compromise and they have categorically indicated in the compromise that they are no more interested in contesting the case and they have no grievance between them, therefore, considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the factum of Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S. Joshi (supra) I am of the considered that the proceedings of Special Trial No. 673/2017, State vs. Nand Lal Pandey relating to Case Crime No. 357A/2016 u/s 504 Indian Penal Code and 3(1) X SC/ST Act, P.S. Government Railway Police, District Lucknow pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Lucknow is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the same proceedings are quashed. 8. Petition is allowed. 9. No order as to costs.