Allahabad High Court
Ramashankar Maurya And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 August, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5408 of 2022
Applicant :- Ramashankar Maurya And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Suraj Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Special Case No. 01 of 2019 (State vs. Ramashankar Maurya and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 345 of 2017 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Lohta, District Varanasi, as well as summoning order dated 06.10.2018 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that vide order dated 26.04.2022, the matter was referred for verification of compromise entered into between the parties before the court below.
From perusal of order sheet, it is evident that report has been sent vide covering letter dated 16.05.2022 by the Additional District Judge SC/ST Act, Varanasi wherein the verification order has been appended. From perusal of aforesaid verification order, it is evident that compromise was entered into between the parties and it has been verified in their presence before the court below.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that infact the present applicant and respondent are neighbors residing in the same village but due to certain domestic quarrel an FIR was lodged. Thereafter, the parties sat together and amicable settlement was done and compromise was filed before the court below and that too was verified.
During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants has also referred a judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online 966 (Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) and has referred paragraph 11 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment, which is quoted hereasunder.
"11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck postconviction, the Courts should, interalia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held:
Page | 7 "19? Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations." [Emphasis Applied]
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."
Referring the aforesaid judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case of SC/ST or any special act the compromise can be done in a situation where primarily the dispute is 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, and, as such, the proceedings may be quashed.
Learned AGA has no objection with the contention aforesaid.
In such view of the submission and going into the verification report the criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 01 of 2019 (State vs. Ramashankar Maurya and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 345 of 2017 under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, P.S. Lohta, District Varanasi, as well as summoning order dated 06.10.2018 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi is hereby set aside.
The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order Date :- 6.8.2022
Ujjawal
