Rohit Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 2 Others

Court No. -28 Case :-APPLICATION U/S 482 No. -10388 of 2023 Applicant :-Rohit Singh And Another Opposite Party :-State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :-Arjun Singh Kalhans,Saurabh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :-G.A.,Yogesh Gupta Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Sri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate has put in appearance by filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and the same is taken on record. Heard Sri Arjun Singh Kalhans, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Yogesh Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and perused the record. Instant application has been filed with following reliefs:-

¶1quash the entire criminal proceedings pending before learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Special Trial No. 244/2017, State Vs Abhishek Singh @ Babu and others, including impugned Charge Sheet No. 19/2013, dated 28.10.2013 filed in Case Crime No. 183/2013, Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow to this application on the basis of compromise dated 06.03.2023 drawn/executed between the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and petitioners.

¶2stay the further proceedings of Special Trial No. 244/2017, State Vs Abhishek Singh @ Babu and others, pending in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow.

¶3any other or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit, just and proper may also kindly be passed in favor of the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He next added that due to some misunderstanding the instant FIR was lodged and no incident has ever taken place. He next added that thereafter the parties sat together and they have settled their disputes by way of executing compromise deed and that too has been reduced in writing on 06.03.2023. Adding his arguments, he submits that now the parties have put their all disputes at rest by way of executing compromise deed and thus further criminal proceedings against the present applicants would be a futile exercise and amount to harassment of the applicants. Adding his arguments, he also submits that this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 11.05.2023 has referred the matter for compromise verification in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4635 of 2023 and in compliance of the aforesaid order, both the parties have appeared before the court below and the compromise deed dated 06.03.2023 has been verified in presence of all concerned parties and the order of verification was passed on 17.08.2023 by the Special Jugde, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow. He next added that now the matter has been compromised between the parties, and as such the proceedings of charge sheet submitted in Case Crime No. 183 of 2013 under sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and 3(1)X SC/ST Act, Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow may be quashed. He next added that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered with the ratio of Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021, SCC Online SC 966 and has 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 ?

¶10So 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.

¶11The 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]

¶16On 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 nos. 2 and 3 has also supported the version of the applicants 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 applicants 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 06.03.2023 and said compromise has been verified on 17.08.2023 and, now, as per the statement of learned counsel for the parties, they do not want to press the aforementioned case, namely, State versus Ram Saran Yadav, arising out of aforementioned Case Crime No. 183 of 2013. In view of the above, as the applicants and opposite parties have entered into compromise on 06.03.2023 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. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings pending before learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Special Trial No. 244/2017, State Vs Abhishek Singh @ Babu and others, including impugned Charge Sheet No. 19/2013, dated

28.10.2013 filed in Case Crime No. 183 of 2013 under sections-323, 504, 506 and 3(1)X of SC/ST Act at Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow are hereby quashed. The compromise deed shall be part of this order. Consequences to be followed. The application is allowed accordingly. The officer shall communicate this order to the court concerned forthwith. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Mayank High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench