Ramesh Kumar Singh And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
2023 Latest Caselaw 15300 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34343
 
Court No. - 28
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1413 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Ramesh Kumar Singh And Anr.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rohitash Kumar Singh,Deepak Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

In compliance of the order dated 26.04.2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has sent letter on 06.05.2023 and has informed that the compromise deed dated 11.10.2021 has been verified and all the parties were present before the trial court. The letter dated 06.05.2023 is also appended with the order of verification dated 30.03.2022.

Heard Sri Rohitash Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ajay Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the material available on record.

The instant appeal has been filed for quashing the Session Case No.465/2021 (State vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and Anr.) as well as quashing the charge-sheet submitted in Case Crime no.175 of 2020 u/s 353, 323, 504,506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(da)(dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Mankapur, District Gonda. Further prayer is that during pendency of appeal, the summoning order dated 11.06.2021 passed in the above noted case may kindly be stayed to meet out the ends of justice.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He further added that due to misunderstanding, the first information report was lodged and thereafter, the parties set together and have amicably settled their dispute and there is no grievance at this juncture against each other. He next added that further criminal proceedings against the present appellants would be futile exercise that would be amount to harassment of appellants.

He further added that the compromise was reduced in writing on 11.10.2021 and thereafter vide order dated 02.02.2022 the compromise was sent for verification and the trial court has verified the compromise deed vide order dated 30.05.2022. He added that there is no issue remains to be agitated are adjudicated before this Court or before the trial court after the compromise deed has been executed and that too has been verified in compliance of the order passed by this Court and thus further criminal proceeding against the present appellants may be quashed.

He next added that the case of the present appellants are squarely covered with the ratio of Judgment of the ratio of Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Ramawatar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021, SCC Online SC 966 and has also referred paragraphs nos. 9,10,11 & 16, which are extracted hereinunder:-

"9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the opinion that two questions fall for our consideration in the present appeal. First, whether the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of a 'noncompoundable offence? If yes, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act ?

10. So far as the first question is concerned, it would be ad rem to outrightly refer to the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramgopal & Anr. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein, a two Judge Bench of this Court consisting of two of us (N.V. Ramana, CJI & Surya Kant, J) was confronted with an identical question. Answering in the affirmative, it has been clarified that the jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a proscription 3 (1999) 5 SCC 238 4 (2005) 1 SCC 343 5 Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012 against the invocation of inherent powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution nor on the powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was further held that the touchstone for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 142 or Section 482 Cr.P.C., would be to do complete justice. Therefore, this Court or the High Court, as the case may be, after having given due regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the victim/complainant has willingly entered into a settlement/compromise, can quash proceedings in exercise of their respective constitutional/inherent powers.

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, 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." [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."

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also supported the version of the appellants and submits that the parties have entered into compromise deed and now there is no dispute in between the parties and thus the criminal proceeding against the appellants may be dropped.

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that compromise has been entered into between the parties on 11.10.2021 and said compromise has been verified on 30.05.2022 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned Case No.465/2021 arising out of Case Crime No.175 of 2020.

In view of the above, as the appellants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 11.10.2021 and no grievance remains to be agitated and, as such, further criminal proceedings in the aforementioned criminal case are liable to be set aside in view of the Judgements of the Apex Court rendered in B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675; Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]; Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; and Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

Resultantly, the criminal proceedings bearing Case No.465/2021 (State vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Anr.) arising out of Case Crime no.175 of 2020 u/s 353, 323, 504,506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(da)(dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Mankapur, District Gonda are hereby quashed.

The compromise deed shall be part of this order.

Consequences to be followed.

In view of aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 16.5.2023

Saurabh Yadav/-