Allowed

Ved Vrat Arya and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2023A482/15497/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, relying on the Supreme Court in Ramawatar, quashed criminal proceedings involving offences under IPC and SC/ST Act. The court held that since the dispute was primarily private and a verified compromise was reached, prolonging the trial would cause injustice.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under S.S.T No. 222 of 2022 arising out of Case No. 2045 of 2001 are quashed.

Ved Vrat Arya and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164566

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15497 of 2005

¶4

Applicant :- Ved Vrat Arya And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- G.S. Hajela Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,R.P.S. Chauhan

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the applicant today, which it taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Sinha, Advocate, holding brief of Sri G.S. Hajela, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Gyanendra Kumar Gupta, holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Maurya, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It was the case under Sections 197, 323, 420, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3 (I) (X) of SC ST Act, P.S. Civil Lines, Budaun.

¶9

The parties have entered into compromise and a certified copy of the compromise deed has been produced before the concerned Judge, Budaun, which has been verified on 19.05.2023.

¶10

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar v. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 , while adverting its judgment rendered in Ramgopal (Supra), in para no.11 & 16 has held as under:-

¶11

"11. The Court in Ramgopal (Supra) further postulated that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous 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 post-conviction, 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:

¶12

"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.

¶13

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in

¶14

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."

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, submissions made by counsel for parties and upon the perusal of material on record, it appears that during pendency of the present application, parties have already settled their dispute voluntarily and amicably. The dispute between the parties is an overwhelming element of a private dispute. Compromise so entered into by parties have been verified by learned Court below. This fact has not been denied by learned counsel for opposite parties. As such, on date, no difference exists between parties. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned cases. In view of compromise entered into by the parties, chances of conviction of accused applicants are also remote and bleak. Resultantly, continuation of proceedings would thus, itself cause injustice to parties. The instant trial would only entail loss of precious judicial time in a futile pursuit.

¶16

In the aforesaid circumstances and in view of the judgement mentioned above, the proceeding of S.S.T No. 222 of 2022 arising out of Case No. 2045 of 2001 (State Vs. Ved Vrat Arya and Ors.), under Sections 197, 323, 420, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3 (I) (X) S.C, S.T Act, P.S Civil Lines, Budaun, is quashed.

¶17

The application U/s 482 Cr.P.C is allowed.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.8.2023 Vinod.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ved Vrat Arya and Others v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Vrat Arya and Others v. State of U.P. and 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

Gaya Prasad Shukl Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chandra Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Others

Surya Nath Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyapal and Others Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sada Singh Vs State of U.P.