Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1451 (ALL)

Sankit v. State of U. P.

2023-05-25

SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV

body2023
JUDGMENT Mr. Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J. Personal affidavit of the victim-Smt. Arti (wife) has been filed today in the Court, the same is taken on record. 2. Applicant No.2- Bhola @ Satpal (husband) and Victim-Smt. Arti (wife) (daughter of the opposite party no.2) are present before this Court in person and duly identified by their counsel. 3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the impugned charge sheet dated 13.12.2017 in Criminal Case No. 16 of 2018 (State v. Sankit and others) arising out of Case Crime No.245 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC, Section 7/8 POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Rohta, District-Meerut with a further prayer to stay the proceedings of the aforesaid case. 4. Victim-Smt. Arti (wife) stated before this court that she and applicant no.2- Bhola @ Satpal have solemnized marriage out of their own free will on 11.09.2017, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the affidavit and they have one child from their wedlock. She further stated in paragraph no.12 of her personal affidavit that her father has wrongly lodged F.I.R. against her husband and others which has been challenged before this Court in earlier Writ Petition No. 21774 of 2017 (Arti and 4 others v. State of U.P. and others) and vide order dated 11.10.2017 co-ordinate Bench of this Court has stayed the arrest of the petitioners. She further stated that she does not want to proceed further in the case against the applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has no objection to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material available on record. 7. Since both the parties are present before this Court in person and have solemnized marriage with their own free will on 11.09.2017 and they have one child from their wedlock and victim does not want to proceed further in the case against the applicants, therefore, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter pending. 8. In the present case, the sections involved are Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC, Section 7/8 POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 9. 8. In the present case, the sections involved are Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC, Section 7/8 POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 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 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. 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. 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 1290], 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. Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 16 of 2018 (State v. Sankit and others) arising out of Case Crime No.245 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 506 IPC, Section 7/8 POCSO Act and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Rohta, DistrictMeerut are hereby quashed. 14. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.