Allowed

Dinesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2021A482/3954/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the court quashed criminal proceedings against the applicants arising from offences under the IPC and the SC/ST Act, 1989. The decision was based on a verified compromise deed signed by the parties, which had been ratified by the Special Session court.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 18 of 2018, State Vs. Dinesh and another, are quashed.

Dinesh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3954 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dinesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Shahi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Kant Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State, Shri C.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet dated 30.1.2018 and entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 18 of 2018, State Vs. Dinesh and another, arising out of case crime no. 680 of 2017 u/s. 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and u/s. 3(2) (5K) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Meerut on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on account of minor scuffle between the parties the instant criminal case was registered against the applicants, however, subsequently with the intervention of respected members of both the family, parties have amicably settled all their disputes and differences and now they have no grievance against each other. Learned counsel for the applicant has next submitted that a compromise deed dated 7.1.2021 has been drawn between the parties, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 to this application.

¶8

In view of said compromise, this Court vide order dated 19.02.2021 had referred the matter to the court below with the direction that the parties will appear before the court concerned. Thereafter the court concerned shall verify the signatories to the compromise and shall submit its report by the next date.

¶9

Pursuant to the said order dated 19.02.2021, the parties appeared before the court below and filed the compromise deed dated 7.1.2021, which has been duly verified by the court below and a report dated 8.03.2021 has been forwarded to this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgement passed by Hon. Apex Court in criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2011, Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has next submitted that

¶12

in view of the compromise deed as well as report dated 8.3.2021 of the court below, entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 18 of 2018, State Vs. Dinesh and another be quashed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has also appeared and submitted that the said compromise has been made without any threat or coercion and out of free will and consent and has also made a statement at the bar that the dispute has already been compromised between the parties and in para 6 of the affidavit it has been stated that in view of compromise entire proceeding against the applicants be quashed.

¶14

This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of :-

¶15

Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008) 9 SCC 677].

¶16

Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1.

¶17

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303.

¶18

Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466.

¶19

Wherein the 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 in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned case.

¶21

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 18 of 2018, State Vs. Dinesh and another, arising out of case crime no. 680 of 2017 u/s. 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and u/s. 3(2) (5K) of the Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Meerut are hereby quashed.

¶22

This application under Section 482 Cr.PC is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.11.2021 R

Dinesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swami Sharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suraj Sharma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rajesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmaveer and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Singh Alias Brijesh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tejram @ Tejpal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another