Mukund Singh And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 7573 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 93
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1290 of 2023
 
Appellant :- Mukund Singh And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Jaysingh Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., 
 

 
Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") on behalf of the appellants praying for setting aside impugned order dated 16.01.2023 passed by ADJ/Spl Judge SC and ST, Lalitpur in S.S.T.No.260/2018 (State vs Jandail Singh and others ) arising out of case crime No.41 of 2018 u/s 323,504,506,325 IPC and 3(1)(r),(s) of ST/ST Act PS-Jakhlaun, District Lalitpur.

2. As per the FIR, the prosecution story is as follows:

The First Informant Puran s/o Kanchhedi Ahirwar was a resident of Village Nunawali. On 10.04.2018, at about 08 a.m., when he (informant) along with his father Kanchhedi, brothers Tilak and Ajay and Bhadai s/o Punu Ahirwar was going on his tractor-trolly to upload the bricks, on the way, appellants and other co-accused persons, namely, Jaidan Singh s/o Lakhan Singh, Mukund singh s/o Lakhan singh, Bablu s/o Sammar Singh and Lakhan Singh s/o Dev Singh Thakur, who are residents of Village-Nunawali, had intercepted, insulted, intimidated and abused them by using caste indicative words, were saying that why are you going to upload the bricks and why you do not not go to do our job. Thereafter, with common intention, they beat them with kicks, fists & sticks and after threatening them, they ran away from the spot, as a result, complainant/informant's side sustained grievous injuries and, thereafter treatment were given to them at District hospital, Lalitpur, fromwhere looking to the seriousness of the victims namely, Kanchhedi and Tilak were referred to Jhansi Medical College and given treatment. When they returned their home, lodged the instant FIR bearing No.0041 of 2018, under Sections 323,504,506,325 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of ST/ST Act PS Jakhlaun, District Lalitpur.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants and Complainant/Respondent No. 2 are known to each other and are neighbours. It is submitted that due to some misunderstanding the quarrel took place between them, however, there was no intention to hurt the respondent No.2 (first informant).

4. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, the respondent No. 2 has amicably settled all his grievances/disputes and differences with the appellants vide compromise-cum-settlement, out of his own free will and without any coercion.

5. While buttressing his arguments, learned counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon"ble Supreme Court passed in Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2011) dated 25.10.2021, which has been dealt with subsequently.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant/respondent No.2 has stated that he has no objection, whatsoever to the settlement deed, the complainant has willfully entered into the said compromise, as such, the impugned order and present criminal proceedings be quashed on the basis of the said compromise.

7. Per Contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the instant Criminal Appeal and submitted that: The SC/ST Act is a special legislation passed to check and deter crimes against scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The legislative intent to implement a specialized law has been to curb the incidents of indignities, humiliation and harassment meted out to the members of these communities. The present FIR is a classic case of mischief sought to be criminalized by this special statute, where accused persons tried to bully the First Informant side just on the basis of their caste. In the instant case, the appellants have intentionally terrorized and humiliated the first informant's side in pursuance of doing their work. The criminal offences of such grave nature cannot be compounded on the basis of settlement between the parties, otherwise if quashing is allowed on the basis of compromise, it would send a wrong message in the society; that the case of Ramawatar (supra), is on a different footing altogether wherein the civil dispute led to the altercation and the said judgment was passed by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, is distinguishable from the facts at hand and hence, is not binding to the instant case.

8. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of parties at length and perused the record.

9. The Appellants by way of the instant Criminal Appeal have prayed that the impugned order be quashed based on compromise and no other averments as to the merits of the case have been made. Thus, the task before the Court is limited to the extent of adjudicating that - whether in the facts of this case, the impugned order and the criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act can be quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.

10. Before scrutinizing the facts of the present case and analyzing the powers exercisable by the High Court under Section 14 -A (1) of SC/ST Act, it is pertinent to refer to and analyse the mandate of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

"320. Compounding of offences.--

(1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table:...

(2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table:...

(3) When an offence is compoundable under this section, the abetment of such offence or an attempt to commit such offence (when such attempt is itself an offence) or where the accused is liable under section 34 or 149 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) may be compounded in like manner.

(4) (a) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is under the age of eighteen years or is an idiot or a lunatic, any person competent to contract on his behalf may, with the permission of the Court, compound such offence. (b) When the person who would otherwise be competent to compound an offence under this section is dead, the legal representative, as defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) of such person may, with the consent of the Court, compound such offence.

(5) When the accused has been committed for trial or when he has been convicted and an appeal is pending, no composition for the offence shall be allowed without the leave of the Court to which he is committed, or, as the case may be, before which the appeal is to be heard.

(6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of revision under section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section.

(7) No offence shall be compounded if the accused is, by reason of a previous conviction, liable either to enhanced punishment or to a punishment of a different kind for such offence.

(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded.

(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section."

11. On a bare perusal of sub-Section (9) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C, it is evident that offences which are "non-compoundable" cannot be compounded by a Criminal Court. Any such attempt by the Court would amount to alteration, addition, and modification of Section 320 of Cr.P.C, which is the exclusive domain of the legislature. However, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of case and for justifiable reasons, can quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and/or to secure the ends of justice.

12. In the instant case, setting aside of impugned order and quashing has been prayed for on the basis of compromise. In the said compromise, the factum of the incident alleged to have transpired, based on which the instant FIR has been registered, has not been contested rather it has been admitted that a quarrel had ensued between the parties that led to the institution of the instant proceedings. Considering the same, there is no requirement of entering into the merits of the case. Hence, the question of any abuse of process does not arise.

13. Since, quashing of the Criminal Proceedings wherein the offence has been stated to be committed under Section 3(1)(r) and (3)(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act is in question, it is pertinent to refer to the legislative intent behind the said legislation. The intent can be gauged from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, which is mentioned hereunder:

"Statement of Objects and Reasons.--Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons. 2. Because of the awareness created amongst the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through spread of education, etc. they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Castes persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 have been found to be inadequate to check these crimes. A special legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary."

14. The legislative intent has also been referred to by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 10 SCC 710, wherein the Hon"ble Court held as under:

"10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to various offences such as 11 indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community."

15. The long title of the Act makes it evident that the Act is intended to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes communities to provide for Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for ensuring relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied their civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out whenever a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations, and harassment.

16. The founding fathers of the Constitution were conscious of the harsh realities of the society and the discrimination that the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have been subjected to. At the time of independence, the lofty ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity were just utopian principles that were although guaranteed by law, but not present on ground. It was for the welfare of the downtrodden and vulnerable that the ameliorative and remedial measures were brought in to ensure that their civil rights are protected and equality in principle is adopted in practice.

17. One of the objectives of the Preamble of Constitution is "fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation". The Preamble did not originally contain the expression "fraternity" rather it was subsequently inserted by the Drafting Committee. It is relevant to refer to the explanation given by Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar for the word "fraternity" wherein he stated that "fraternity means a sense of common brotherhood of all Indians". In a country like ours with the vivid diversity and the plethora of fault lines, it is necessary to emphasise and re-emphasize that the unity and integrity of India can be preserved only by a spirit of brotherhood.

18. As stated by the Hon"ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727, to achieve this ideal of fraternity, three provisions namely - Articles 15, 17 and 24 were included in the Constitution of India. Despite these provisions being in place, the founding fathers of the Constitution expected the Legislature to enact effective measures to root out the caste-based discrimination in the society. First attempt by the Parliament to achieve that end was the enactment of the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 wherein the burden of proof was fixed on the accused and not on the prosecution. Next came the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, that made provisions for outlawing and penalising the social practices associated with untouchability and disabilities. Subsequently, it was felt that the 1955 Act (which was amended in 1976) did not provide for sufficient deterrence to the 12 caste-based discriminatory practices against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities.

19. Finally, to plug in the loophole, and to ensure the rights which the Constitution has guaranteed to the people, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to prevent the commission of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, to provide for Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences. The Act has also for the first time laid down an expansive definition of "atrocity" to cover the multiple manners through which the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been humiliated, oppressed and downtrodden for centuries.

20. In light of the aforesaid, it is important to reiterate that unless the provisions of the Act are enforced in their true letter and spirit, and the legislative intent underlying the Act is manifested, the vision of a society free of caste-based discrimination will only remain a distant dream.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has extensively placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar (supra), and hence it is crucial to analyse the same at length.

22. The Hon"ble Supreme Court while deciding the said Appeal was faced with two questions, first whether the jurisdiction of the Hon"ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a non compoundable offence; and if the answer to the first question is in affirmative, second whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act.

23. In response to the first question, the Hon"ble Supreme Court reiterated the finding of Ramgopal & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012) dated 29.09.2021, and while holding that Section 320 of Cr.P.C. cannot be construed as a bar on invocation of the inherent powers vested in the Court also held that the touchstone for exercise of the extra-ordinary powers under the inherent jurisdiction would be to do complete justice. The Hon"ble Supreme Court reiterated the note of caution, that the Court must take into consideration while exercising the powers under the provisions, and held:

"11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving non heinous 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 post conviction, the Courts should, inter alia, 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:

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."

24. As regards the second question the Hon"ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has observed 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 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.

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."

25. The Hon"ble Supreme Court in the said judgment as regards the second question further held that:

"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. is held that whether has held that though offences under the SC/ST Act can be quashed if the offence is primarily private or civil in nature, however, before quashing, the Court must be satisfied that the victim has not been put under pressure to enter into the settlement. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case in light of the afore stated principles, as well as having meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before us...."

26. Upon a detailed deliberation on the question of quashing of criminal proceedings in offences under the SC/ST Act and in light of the judgments discussed herein above, the following principles emerge:

(i) While dealing with the quashing of the criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act, the Court should be extremely circumspect in its approach and cognizant of the legislative intent of the said Act.

(ii) In cases involving the offences under special legislations like the SC/ST Act, while considering the quashing of criminal proceedings, the social discrimination that prevails and the vulnerability of the weaker sections of the society as being prone to coercion, the Court should be more vigilant to ensure that the victim has entered into the compromise on one"s own volition and free will and not on account of any duress. If, while considering the same, there is an iota of apprehension of compulsion or coercion, no relief can be given to the accused. The factors to determine the volition/free consent of the victim would depend on the facts and circumstances and would vary from case to case.

(iii) Upon the aforesaid analysis, in the opinion of the Court, it is found that:

first, if the offence although covered under the SC/ST Act is primarily private or civil in nature; or,

second, where the offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim; or,

third, where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law; and,

fourth, if the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, then the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not be a bar on the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction, and the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings.

26. This Court has considered the case at hand, the case laws and principles of law referred above and specifically the judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar (supra). What emerges is that when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court should be extremely circumspect in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings.

27. In the Ramawatar's case (supra), there was a pre-existing property dispute between the parties which led to the conflict and the said turn of events which led to the initiation of criminal proceedings under SC/ST Act. However, in the instant case the root of conflict was that First Informant side was not doing their job instead taking away the tractor-trolly to upload bricks and  they were abused, beaten and threatened on their caste lines by the appellants.

28. Further, in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Ramawatar's case (Supra), the powers were exercised by the Hon"ble Supreme Court under Article 142 to quash the criminal proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between the parties before it. However, in this case there is neither any cogent reason nor any travesty of justice being caused or any abuse of process that needs to be prevented thus warranting the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

29. In the instant case, what appears is that the humiliation of the Victim/First Informant side was totally unprovoked, uncalled for, with the sole intention of humiliating the victim for not doing their job. The offence in the instant case was preceded by a criminal intent of humiliating the victim on the basis of his caste and has been committed solely and consciously on account of the caste of the victim.

30. Furthermore, having regard to the legislative intent underlying the SC/ST Act to deter the acts of indignity, humiliation, and harassment against members of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes, and the facts in the instant case, the compromise does not indicate the settlement of any civil dispute and the possibility of the First Informant side being coerced to enter into the compromise cannot be ruled out as appellant No.2 Lakhan Singh has criminal history of two cases and appellant no.4 Jandail Singh has criminal history of 14 case, which is evident from para 19 of the criminal appeal. There is no rationale as to why the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

31. Therefore, the offence in the instant case being not of a pre-dominantly civil nature and being committed solely on the basis of caste of victim, the rigours of SC/ST Act being a Special statute, enacted with a specific noble legislative intent that must be given effect in its letter and spirit, cannot be diluted by quashing the Criminal Proceedings in question on the basis of compromise. Thus, in the instant case, a case for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not made out, as in this case a Criminal Appeal has been filed under S.14-A (1) SC/ST Act, which reads as follows:-

"14-A(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law."

32. In the Scheme of SC/ST Act, there is no provision for compounding the offences under the Act.

33. In the light of the analysis made above and as appellants have failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order dated 16.01.2023, I am of the view that Appeal being devoid of merits which is liable to be dismissed and is, hereby, dismissed.

33. It is made clear that the observations made herein while dismissing the instant Criminal Appeal shall have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case during trial.

Order Date :- 16.3.2023

Ashutosh

(Gajendra Kumar, J.)