Allowed

Ram Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2023A482/16993/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order and criminal proceedings. The court quashed the case after verifying a compromise between the parties under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act, citing relevant precedents that allow compromise in cognizable offences to prevent unnecessary prolongation of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The summoning order dated 6.9.2012 and the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 9208 of 2010 under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) of the 10 SC/ST Act are quashed.

Ram Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16993 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Singh And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rakesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned summoning order dated 6.9.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar in Complaint Case No. 9208 of 2010 (Sanjay Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.) under Sections 452, 323 & 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha as well as entire proceedings of aforementioned complaint case, on the basis of compromise entered into by the parties.

¶7

Earlier, on 01.09.2022, the following order was passed:-

¶8

"Heard Mr. Rakesh Chandra Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶9

Perused the record.

¶10

Challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the summoning order dated 6.9.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar in Complaint Case No. 9208 of 2010 (Sanjay Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.) under Sections 452, 323 & 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha as well as entire proceedings of aforementioned complaint case, on the basis of compromise entered into by the parties.

¶11

It is submitted that on account of intervention of their well-wishers, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties outside the Court. The said compromise has been filed before the court concerned. It is further contended that proceedings of the aforesaid case may be quashed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶12

Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.

¶13

Put up this case on 12.10.2022 as fresh.

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties undertake to ensure their presence before

¶15

the court below or any other transferee court, as the case may be, on 23.9.2022 and the court concerned, thereafter, shall ascertain the veracity of the compromise. If the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, shall be prepared and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof and file the same before this Court by the next date.

¶16

Parties are also directed to produce certified copy of this order before the court concerned on the date fixed before it.

¶17

Until further orders of this Court, no coercive action shall be taken against applicants in Complaint Case No. 9208 of 2010 (Sanjay Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.) under Sections 452, 323 & 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha, now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar."

¶18

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 01.09.2022, a report regarding verification of compromise deed has been placed on record as is evident from the office report dated 21.02.2023. A letter of the Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha dated 23.09.2022 has been placed alongwith certified copy of order dated 23.09.2022 vide which compromise has been verified in the presence of the parties alongwith their respective counsels.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on account of compromise entered into between the parties concerned, all disputes between them have come to an end, and therefore, further proceedings against the applicant in the aforesaid case is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid fact and submitted at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

¶21

Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:-

¶22

1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,

¶23

2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,

¶24

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,

¶25

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

¶26

In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in

¶27

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. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 . in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.

¶28

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 criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.

¶29

Accordingly, the summoning order dated 6.9.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar in Complaint Case No. 9208 of 2010 (Sanjay Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.) under Sections 452, 323 & 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) 10 SC/ST Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha as well as entire proceedings of aforementioned complaint case is hereby quashed.

¶30

The application is, accordingly, allowed . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.

¶32

Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Jitendra/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Singh and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh and 5 Others 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

Vinod Kumar Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shamsuddin Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Bahadur Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gulafsha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kripa Shankar and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanni and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others