Allahabad High Court
Amir And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24554
Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8662 of 2024
Appellant :- Amir And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Abdullah Rawaha
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Kumar Pandey,Shahabuddin
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The parties before this Court had made a request that they have entered into a compromise in this matter and have settled all the disputes between them and now they do not want to proceed with this matter.
4. A perusal of record shows that by way of present instant criminal appeal legality and validity of the cognizance order dated 25.10.2020 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi in Case No. 109 of 2020, (State Vs. Sakib and Others), as well as charge-sheet dated 05.02.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted before this Court that the compromise entered into the parties have been made without any coercion or undue influence upon the informant of this case and it is a result of his free will and consent.
6. The coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order on 26.11.2024 which is quoted herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties has submitted that the parties have amicably settled their disputes through compromise deed dated 18.07.2024 and has been verified by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kaushambi on 01.10.2024.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 states that he has received compensation of Rs. 25,000/- under the SC/ST Act and wants to return it back to the Authorities concerned.
Let the same be deposited within a period of one week from the date of the order and a report be called from the District Magistrate, Kaushambi regarding the same.
List on 10.12.2024 in the additional cause list."
7. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the coordinate Bench of this Court, opposite party no. 2 has deposited Rs. 25,000/- which was received as compensation amount under the SC/ST Act, in the State Bank of India, Manjhanpur, Kaushambi through treasury challan. Further the compromise deed was submitted before the trial court which was duly verified by it vide order dated 01.10.2024.
8. It appears from perusal of the record that the present case is having a nature of purely private dispute and prima facie it also appears that the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim and except SC/ST Act minor offences have been levelled against the accused. Further, the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the complainant without any undue influence.
9. Whether a compromise can be verified and accepted in a case relating to an offence under SC/ST Act has been answered in Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. (2022) 13 SCC 635. Paragraph no. 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:-
"17. 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."
10. It is further held in paragraph no. 19 of the said judgment which is quoted herein under:-
"19. 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"
11. A perusal of the full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan And Others vs State Of U.P And Another 2022 (8) ADJ 691 reveals that a matter under the SC/ST Act may be compounded in a criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act and there is no need to take recourse of U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for the same.
12. In view of that this Court finds that since the parties have entered into compromise which has already been verified by the trial court and the compensation amount received by the informant from the Government has already been deposited in the Treasury, now nothing rests in this matter to continue.
13. Hence, the charge-sheet dated 05.02.2020 in Case No. 109 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2020, (State Vs. Sakib and Others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi alongwith cognizance order dated 25.10.2020 passed by the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi as well are set aside and quashed and the present criminal appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise entered into by both the parties.
Order Date :- 19.2.2025
Vikram
