Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1327 (ALL)

Kailash Chand Sharma@ Kailashi v. State of U. P.

2023-05-15

SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV

body2023
JUDGMENT Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent and perused the record. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 198 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2019, under Sections 147, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jagner, District Agra including the charge sheet and summoning order on the basis of compromise dated 19.10.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that pursuant to order dated 17.4.2023, compromise deed entered into between the parties was sent to trial court for verification. He further submitted that pursuant to the said order, applicants and opposite party no.2 appeared before the court concerned and their compromise dated has been duly verified by the court below vide order dated 02.05.2023, which is supplied today and is also taken on record. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that as both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise executed between the parties have already duly verified, therefore, proceedings pending against the applicants should be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also conceded that both the parties have already amicably settled their dispute, the compromise, which was executed between the parties has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court and opposite party no.2 himself does not want to proceed further on merits of the case and he is having no objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant is quashed on the basis of compromise. 7. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer by submitting that present matter relates to the provisions of SC/ST Act and being special act, proceedings merely on the basis of compromise should not be quashed but he could not dispute the fact that the dispute between the parties appears to be private in nature and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise was also duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim. The view expressed in the said judgement has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 . 10. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [ AIR 2019 SC 1296 ] discussed and considered the power of this Court in respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties. Further, the three judges Bench of the Apex Court in case of Ramawatar v. State of M.P. AIR 2021 SC 5228 observed as:- "15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities. 16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C." 11. In view of the above, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. 12. Therefore, in view of the above and considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675 , Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 ; Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466 ; State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307 ; J.Ramesh Kamath v. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [ AIR 2019 SC 1296 ], Ramawatar v. State of M.P. AIR 2021 SC 5228 , Ram Gopal, and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh with Krishnappa and others v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 834 as also considering the settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility. 13. 13. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 198 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2019, under Sections 147, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jagner, District Agra are hereby quashed. However, opposite party no. 2 is further directed to refund the money, if any, taken by him by the State Government forthwith. 14. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.