Disposed

Chhotkku @ Jai Prakash Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Director Prosecution and Another

Allahabad HC22 May 2023/1916/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special leave petitioners challenged the summons order and charge sheet in a trial involving sections of the SC/ST Act and IPC, submitting that a compromise deed was executed. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad did not quash proceedings but directed the trial court to verify the compromise in the presence of parties and stay the proceedings for one month pending such verification.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings stayed for one month; directions issued to trial court to verify compromise deed presence of signatories.

Chhotkku @ Jai Prakash Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:35757

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1916 of 2019

¶4

Appellant :- Chhotkku @ Jai Prakash Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Director Prosecution And Another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Neeraj Tripathi,Kunwar Ravi Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Saksham Agarwal

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Order on application for condonation for delay.

¶8

Explanation given in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation is sufficent.

¶9

The delay is hereby condoned.

¶10

Order on Appeal.

¶11

Heard Sri Kunwar Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Saksham Aggrawal, advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Nirmal Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶12

By means of the instant appeal, the appellant has prayed to allow the appeal and summoning order dated 05.10.2011 along with impugned charge sheet passed in sessions trial no. 867 of 2019; Case crime no. 160 of 2011 under section: 323, 504, 325 IPC and 3(I)(X) S.C./S.T. Act; Police Station- Sandana, districtSitapur (State of U.P. vs. Chhotakku) be set aside and further prayed that the appellant may kindly direct the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act District- Sitapur to consider the application of parties to compound the offence as per the provision of section 320(8) Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that due to some misunderstanding, the instant FIR was lodged and thereafter the parties sat together and have amicably settled their disputes by way of executing compromise deed and that too has been reduced in writing on 09.08.2019. He next added that now the parties have put their all disputes at rest by way of executing compromise deed and there is no fate of the trial, thus the criminal proceedings against the present applicant would be a

¶14

futile exercise and would amount to harassment of the applicant, and as such, the entire proceeding of sessions trial no. 867 of 2019; Case crime no. 160 of 2011 under section: 323, 504, 325 IPC and 3(I)(X) S.C./S.T. Act; Police StationSandana, district- Sitapur (State of U.P. vs. Chhotakku) may be quashed.

¶15

In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance in the case of Ramawatar Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh,2021 SCC Online SC 966 and has referred paragraph nos. 9,10,11 & 16 , which are extracted hereinunder:-

¶16

"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 ?

¶17

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.

¶18

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,

¶19

cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck postconviction, the Courts should, interalia, 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:

¶20

"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]

¶21

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."

¶22

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicant is squarely covered with the ratio of the aforesaid Judgment.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has supported the version of the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the parties have settled their disputes through the compromise deed and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

¶24

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶25

Now, whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties

¶26

concerned before the Court.

¶27

Accordingly, this application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record.

¶28

The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings.

¶29

For a period of one month, the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Special sessions trial no. 867 of 2019; Case crime no. 160 of 2011 under section: 323, 504, 325 IPC and 3(I)(X) S.C./S.T. Act; Police Station- Sandana, district- Sitapur (State of U.P. vs. Chhotakku), shall remain stayed so far as applicant is concerned.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has also supported the version of the counsel for the applicants and submits that the complainant-injured has no grievance to the applicants and they have settled their dispute and thus, the criminal proceedings against the applicants may be dropped.

¶31

Office is directed to return the original compromise deed to the learned counsel for the applicants, if any, after taking the photocopy of the same.

¶32

Order Date :- 22.5.2023 Mayank

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chhotkku @ Jai Prakash Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Director Prosecution and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotkku @ Jai Prakash Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Director Prosecution 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

Ram Karan Yadav and Another. Vs State of U.P.

Kashi Ram Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secy. Govt. Lko. and Another

Rajeshwari Prasad Pandey and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another