Allahabad High Court
Shravan Tyagi And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 July, 2023
Bench: Om Prakash Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141792
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7450 of 2022
Appellant :- Shravan Tyagi And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Deo Ojha,Sachchida Nand Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Shiromani Yadav
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State and also perused the record and impugned order.
2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against charge-sheet dated 31.05.2022 and cognizance order dated 15.07.2022 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Muzaffar Nagar, in S.S.T. No.40 of 2022 (State vs. Shravan and others), arising out of Case Crime No.88 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)Dha S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Mansoorpur, District-Muzaffar Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that appellants are innocent and have falsely being implicated due to ulterior motive and village party bandi while appellants have never beaten the informant nor given abuse with caste indicated words. After some time, son of informant has given an application on 16.05.2022 with an affidavit of his mother and witnesses to S.S.P, Muzaffar Nagar that no such type of incident has taken place. Appellants have never committed any offence but I.O. did not take the application and affidavit but filed the charge-sheet against the appellants. Compromise deed between the parties had been prepared on 23.08.2022. Offences under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. are compoundable offence and in Section 3(1)Dha S.C./S.T. Act, punishment is only of six months, but it may extend to five years. There is no injury report on record. Appellants are peace loving and law abiding citizens of the society and they have no criminal history.
4. This Court directed the trial court to verify the compromise after depositing entire amount received from the Government as compensation. Thereafter parties had filed a compromise before the court concerned. Rs.75,000/- has been received by the informant (Gram Pradhan) from Social Welfare Office as compensation under S.C./S.T. Rules which was deposited in the treasury and thereafter compromise has been verified by the court concerned and parties have filed order-sheet dated 07.12.2022 by which it reveals that compromise has been verified.
5. Photocopy of the compromise is on record in which it has been stated by informant (Gram Pradhan) that appellants had not made any caste derogatory words to her. She filed this compromise in the lack of knowledge. Her son intimated her that accused persons were not involved in the case and she does not want any sort of action against the appellants.
6. It is also submitted that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceeding of the said case. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that interest of justice shall better be served in case summoning order and entire proceeding should be set-aside by this Court and relied on following judgments of the Apex Court:
i. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
ii. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
iii. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
iv. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
v. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.
vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [AIR 2019 SC 1296]
7. In the aforesaid judgments, Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceeding of the above mentioned case. It is said that after F.I.R. Rs.75,000/- compensation has been received by opposite party no.2/informant from the State Government under S.C./S.T. Rules. Informant is Gram Pradhan and a responsible person of the village. He has lodged false and frivolous F.I.R. against the appellants with intent to humiliate and create undue pressure and harass the appellants. Such sort of unwarranted litigations create burden over our judicial system. Courts are overburdened by such sort of litigations especially relating to S.C./S.T. Act. Courts are used as a tool of harassment. Precious time of Courts are consumed in such frivolous/vexatious litigations and due to paucity of time substantial litigations are delayed. Frivolous/vexatious incoming of cases should be checked. Legal awareness does not mean frivolous/vexatious litigations. Litigations should be for genuine cause/relief.
9. Informant who is Gram Pradhan has lodged this F.I.R against the appellant with regard to abuse. Caste derogatory words and maar peet offences are minor in nature but precious time of our trial court has been consumed in such sort of bogus litigations. This is a glaring example for misuse of S.C./S.T. Act and this Court is of the opinion that Rs.15,000/- exemplary fine should be imposed upon opposite party no.2. The total amount of fine of Rs.15,000/- shall be deposited in the account of District Legal Services Authority, Muzaffar Nagar within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order by opposite party no.2. This amount shall be utilized for benefit of the litigants according to the satisfaction of Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Muzaffar Nagar and after fulfillment of the said condition on the basis of compromise impugned cognizance order dated 15.07.2022 is set-aside and consequently proceeding of the Case Crime No.88 of 2022 (State vs. Shravan and others) passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Muzaffar Nagar is closed and no need to proceed further.
9. Trial Court shall ensure the deposition of the said amount, before consigning the record. In default of payment of fine directed as above, this order shall be deemed vacated automatically.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 12.7.2023
Kalp Nath Singh
