Allowed

Manager Mehram Singh @ Mehram Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022A482/10732/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that proceedings under SC/ST Act and IPC sections 323, 504, 506 were quashed upon a verified compromise between parties. Relying on Ramawatar, the Court held that if the offence appears private and minor, quashing is permissible despite the special statute.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet, cognizance, summoning order, and proceedings of S.S.T. No. 1042 of 2020 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act were quashed.

Manager Mehram Singh @ Mehram Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10732 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manager Mehram Singh @ Mehram Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to quash charge-sheet no. 1 of 2020 dated 16.03.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 2020 as well as cognizance and summoning order dated 20.07.2020 and proceeding of S.S.T. No. 1042 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Niwari, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ghaziabad.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is facing trial of the case relates to Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and during the pendency of the trial, compromise has been executed between the parties, which has now been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court. He next submitted that applicant earlier also knocked the door of this Court vide Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 17484 of 2021, which was decided on 04.03.2022 with a direction that applicant and opposite party no.2 shall appear before the court concerned and court below was also directed to verify the compromise executed between the parties. He next submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, both the parties appeared before the court concerned and court below has duly verified the compromise executed between them, which is evident from the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the court below, which is annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of present application. He further submitted that the order of verification dated 25.03.2022 was passed on the back side of compromise executed between the parties. He next submitted that no dispute is left between the parties and even opposite

¶9

party no.2 is also not willing to pursue the matter further on merits and he is also having no objection if on the basis of compromise proceeding pending against the applicant is quashed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also conceded the fact that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise executed between them has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court and opposite party no.2 is also having no objection if proceeding pending against the applicant is quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that although both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise executed between them has also been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court but he submitted that trial of the case also relates to the provisions of SC/ST Act, which is a special Act, therefore, it would not be desirable to scuttled the proceedings at its inception on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.

¶12

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

From the perusal of the record, it appears that charge-sheet against the applicant has been submitted under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute out of the Court and compromise executed between them has been duly verified by the court below on 25.03.2022 pursuant to the order passed by this Court and as per counsel for the opposite party no.2, the complainant of the case is also having no objection if proceeding pending against the applicant be quashed on the basis of compromise.

¶14

Although, applicant is facing trial under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is special Act but three judges Bench of the Apex Court in case of Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2021 SC 5228 observed as:-

¶15

"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 continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of

¶16

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.

¶17

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."

¶18

Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Ramawatar (supra) proceeding in respect of provisions of SC/ST Act can be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.

¶19

In the present case, the dispute between the parties appears to be minor one and private in nature, which does not affect the public at large, therefore, in my view, proceeding pending against the applicant in such cases may be quashed on the basis of compromise executed between the parties.

¶20

In view of above discussion, I find merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, proceeding of the aforesaid case pending against the applicant is hereby quashed .

¶21

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of settlement/compromise made between the parties concerned.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.9.2022 AK Pandey

¶23

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.09.22 10:45:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manager Mehram Singh @ Mehram Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manager Mehram Singh @ Mehram Singh 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

Farman Chirodiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Love Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Munisha Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another

Smt Neetu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajjan Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another