Allowed

Jaivindra and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC25 May 2023A482/13011/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings arising from a case under the SC/ST Act. The court held that since parties had amicably settled the dispute, verified the compromise, and deposited compensation, quashing served the interest of justice without prejudice to society.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of charge sheet No.48 of 2022, cognizance/summoning order, and entire pending proceedings of S.S.T. No. 592 of 2022.

Jaivindra and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 10 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117304

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13011 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jaivindra And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard Sri J.P. Mishra, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 11 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicants that the parties have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and a written compromise has taken place between them on 14.7.2022. Photocopy of the compromise has been filed as annexure 6 to the affidavit filed in support of application.

¶8

This Court vide order dated 21.4.2023 directed the parties to appear before the Court concerned for verification of compromise. In compliance of order dated 21.4.2023, parties had appeared before the trial Court, who were identified by their respective counsels and the compromise was verified on 18.5.2023 by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC & ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Shamli. Certified copy of compromise verification report dated 18.5.2023 has been annexed as SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.5.2023. Since parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and opposite party nos.2 to 11 do not want to prosecute the applicants, no useful purpose would be served in keeping it pending.

¶9

It is further submitted that the compensation of Rs.75,000/received by opposite party No. 2 Smt. Sarita has already been deposited on 10.5.2023 in the office of Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Shamli. Photocopy of letter of Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Shamli dated 12.5.2023 has been annexed as SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.5.2023.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for opposite party No.2 do not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others , reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688

¶12

has laid down principles for quashing the proceeding on the basis of settlement/compromise. Relevant paragraph No.15 is quoted herein below:-

¶13

"15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the point, referred to herein above, it is observed and held as under:

¶14

i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves;

¶15

ii) such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society;

¶16

iii) similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender;

¶17

iv) offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial. Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of this Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra) should be read harmoniously and to be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;

¶18

v) while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in nature and do not have a serious impart on society, on the ground that there is a settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the

¶19

conduct of the accused, namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc."

¶20

In view of the aforesaid fact, since the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and compromise between the parties has already been verified by the Trial Court, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C.is liable to be allowed.

¶21

Accordingly, the present Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the charge sheet No.48 of 2022 dated 4.5.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated 16.7.2022 as well as entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 592 of 2022(State vs. Jaivindra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149,323, 325, 354-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Adarsh Mandi, District Shamli, pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge(Rape and POCSO Act), Shamli , are hereby quashed.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.5.2023 P.P.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- POONAM PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jaivindra and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaivindra and 9 Others v. State of U.P. and 10 Others

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

Naim and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Rajaram and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Boby @ Brajesh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Nath and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajab Singh and 10 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another