Allowed

Zabbar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2023A482/28812/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of criminal proceedings following an amicable compromise verified in open court. The court held that since the dispute was predominantly private and settled voluntarily, continuing the trial would serve no purpose and cause injustice.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2018 (State Vs. Zabbar and Others) arising out of Case Crime NO. 302 of 2017 is quashed.

Zabbar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28812 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Zabbar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. Perused the material available on record.

¶6

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the entire proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2018 (State Vs. Zabbar and Others) arising out of Case Crime NO. 302 of 2017 under Section 452, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (w) (i) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Dhanghata, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶7

The parties, out of their own free will, have settled their dispute amicably and in furtherance thereof, they have filed a compromise deed dated 30.6.2022 annexed as Annexure No.8 to this application. Thereafter, vide order 9.11.2022 the said compromise deed was directed to be filed before trial court and to get the same verified and submit a report. Pursuant to order dated 9.11.2022, learned A.S.J./Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar has sent letter with the averments that both the parties appeared before him and after verification of the parties the compromise deed has been verified in the open Court with the consent of the parties.

¶8

It is a case relating of offences of Penal Code as well as POCSO Act wherein the parties have entered into compromise and the same has been verified on 12.12.2022.

¶9

Reliance has been placed on the law laid down in Olius Mawiong and another Vs. State of Meghalaya and Another, 2022 Law Suit (MG) 127 , Narindra Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2014) 6 SCC 466 and Ramawatar vs. State of M.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 966 .

¶10

Further reliance has been placed on an order of this Court passed in Application U/S 482 No. 7716 of 2021 (Ramesh Chandra And 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), wherein

¶11

on the basis of compromise, proceeding relating to POCSO Act and S.C./S.T. was quashed.

¶12

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 has held as under:-

¶13

"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:

¶14

"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."

¶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 view of above, the instant application succeeds and is liable to be allowed.

¶17

Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Special Sessions Trial No. 1 of 2018 (State Vs. Zabbar and Others) arising out of Case Crime NO. 302 of 2017 under Section 452, 354, 323, 504, 506

¶18

I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (w) (i) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Dhanghata, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar is, hereby, quashed.

¶19

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed .

¶20

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court concerned through email/fax immediately for necessary compliance.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.1.2023 Arpan/S.Verma

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Zabbar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zabbar and 2 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

Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anshul Srivastava and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harinam Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kumar Jain and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinit Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman Vs State of U.P and 3 Others