Allowed

Robin Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023A482/37823/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 506 IPC and the SC/ST Act concerning an offence at Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. Relying on precedents, the court held that a verified compromise between parties justified quashing the case, despite the nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 2324 of 2022 before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Ghaziabad are hereby quashed.

Robin Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37823 of 2022 Applicant :- Robin Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Singh,Ravindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶3

Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 in court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶4

Heard Mr. Ravindra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State.

¶5

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing the entire proceedings of S.S.T.No. 2324 of 2022 (State Vs. Vireshwar Tyagi and otherfs) under Sections 323, 506 I.PC. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending before learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Ghaziabad.

¶6

On 24.03.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶7

"Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants in Court today, is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same.

¶8

Heard Mr. Rewati Raman Patel, Advocate holding brief of Mr. R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶9

On 01.12.2022, the following order was passed:

¶10

"Sri Shrawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶12

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing proceedings of S.S.T.No. 2324 of 2022 (State Vs. Vireshwar Tyagi and otherfs) under Sections 323, 506 I.PC. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending before learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Ghaziabad.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the charge sheet has been issued, the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise has been entered between them which has been reduced in writing.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the compromise.

¶15

Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order on the next date fixed and be permitted to file an application for verification of the original compromise document. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order with respect to the verification within a period of two months from today. Upon due verification, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

¶16

List after two months.

¶17

Till then no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

¶18

In compliance of aforesaid order, the compromise has been verified by order dated 27.01.2023 in present of parties along with their respective counsels.

¶19

The matter relates to offence under S.C./S.T. Act.

¶20

Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 may inquire as to whether the informant has taken any compensation or not.

¶21

List on 11.04.2023 for further hearing.

¶22

Interim order, granted earlier, is extended till the next date of listing."

¶23

The matter relates to offence under S.C/S.T. Act. Therefore, on 11.04.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶24

"List this matter on 19th April, 2023 in order to enable the learned counsel for the opposite party to file an affidavit that for an offence u/s SC/ST Act he has not received any compensation.

¶25

Interim order, if any, is extended till the next date of listing."

¶26

In compliance of order dated 11.04.2023, a short counter affidavit has been filed, wherein in para 3, it has been averred that the opposite party no.2 has not obtained any compensation amount from the Government and a notary affidavit in this regard has also been placed at page 6 of the short counter affidavit.

¶27

In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 24.03.2023, compromise verification report received from learned Special Judge (S.C/S.T. Act) Ghaziabad, is kept on record as is evidence from office report dated 19.04.2023. A letter of learned Special Judge (S.C/S.T. Act) Ghaziabad dated 11.04.2023 has been placed along with compromise deed as well as order dated 27.01.2023 vide which the compromise has been verified by the Court below in presence of parties along with their respective counsels.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1, 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303, 5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of S.S.T.No. 2324 of 2022 (State Vs. Vireshwar Tyagi and otherfs) under Sections 323, 506 I.PC. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending before learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Ghaziabad is hereby quashed.

¶36

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

¶37

It is made clear that in future it is found that any compensation amounts has been received by opposite party no.2, the opposite party no.1 may take steps to recover the same.

¶38

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

¶39

Order Date :- 19.4.2023/Imtiyaz

¶40

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Robin Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin Kumar 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

Qamar Ahmad @ Guddan and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Om Prakhash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Raikwar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sukhvir Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another