Allahabad High Court
Abhay Raj And Another vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 26 July, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2009 of 2010
Applicant :- Abhay Raj And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Kumar Yadav,Santosh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Santosh Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vishal Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A., representing respondent no.1-State as well as Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no 3.
2. This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3000/2010, State Vesus Udairaj, under sections 323,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Sangrampur, district-Sultanpur, pending in the court of Vth A.C.J.M, Court No. 21-, Sultanpur.
3. The impugned proceedings have been sought to be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, which has been reduced in writing and terms & conditions of which have been filed along with application.
4. The parties are present in person before this court,who are identified by their respective counsels.
5. On behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that offene under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC are compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. It is further submitted that in light of judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 (Ramawater Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) even the offence under Section 3(I)(X) SC/ST Act can be quashed if the parties enter into a compromise.
6. Learned A.G.A. however, submits that it appears that most of the prosecution witnesses have been examined and at this stage quashing of impugned proceedings on the basis of compromise would not be proper. The parties may appear before the trial Court along with compromise and the trial Court, after verifying the compromise, may take appropriate action under Section 231 CrPC. Trial is still going on and some of the witnesses are yet to be examined.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The offence against the applicants is trivial in nature except offence under Section 3(I)(X) SC/ST Act. The Supreme Court in Ramawater Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) has held as under:-
"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.
17. Adverting to the case in hand, we note that the present Appellant has been charged and convicted under the unamended Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act7, which was as follows:
?3. Punishments for offences of atrocities- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,?
xxxx
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
xxxx?
18. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case."
9. Considering the fact that the parties have put their dispute behind and decided to live peacefully by entering into compromise, I find that this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Ramawater Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). Thus, this application is allowed.
10. Consequently, entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3000/2010, State Vesus Udairaj, under sections 323,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Sangrampur, district-Sultanpur, pending in the court of Vth A.C.J.M, Court No. 21-, Sultanpur are hereby quashed.
11. Allowed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2022
AKS
