Allowed

Hari Shankar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 May 2023CRLA/2095/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge quashed the cotton field offense convictions of the appellant after he filed a criminal appeal arguing that his dispute settled amicably before the trial court. Citing Supreme Court precedents allowing compromise in SC/ST cases with consent, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Order dated 15.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jalaun at Orai is quashed so far as it relates to the appellant.

Hari Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110722

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2095 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Hari Shankar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Mishra,Hemant Shah Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Harish Chandra Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Harish Chandra Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and 3 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant- Hari Shankar with the prayer to allow the appeal and set-aside the judgment and order dated 15.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jalaun at Orai, arising out of Complaint Case No. 26 of 2022 (Hari Shanker vs. Ramesh Chandra and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Ata, District Jalaun.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 jointly submit that on the basis of some misunderstanding a complaint was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the appellant. However, during the course of pendency of the proceedings the dispute was amicably settled and a compromise in this regard was filed before the Special Court and under the orders of this Court dated 29.03.2023 the same was directed to be verified and the parties in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 29.03.2023 has appeared before the Special Court and have acknowledged the terms of the compromise and the compromise has been verified and a verification report in this regard has also been prepared by the Special Court.

¶10

It is also submitted that since the dispute was pertaining to the minor penal offences and the same has been amicably settled, the pendency of the proceedings before the court below is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and the same be quashed/set-aside.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. would have no objection to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, as the dispute is pertaining to the minor penal offences and has been amicably settled, moreover, the case wherein the appellants were summoned, was initiated on the basis of a complaint.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that in pursuance of the compromise filed before the Special Court, the same was acknowledged by the parties by appearing before the Special Court and a report in this regard has been sent by the Special Court vide its communication dated 27.04.2023, the same is available on record, wherein it is stated that the parties have understood the terms of the compromise and have verified the same. The Special Court has also enclosed with the report a copy of the compromise. The said report of the Special Court as well as the copy of communication dated 27.04.2023 shall remain part and parcel of this order.

¶13

The dispute between the parties is pertaining to S.C./S.T. Act, but having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Avtar Vs. State of M.P. ; MANU/SC/0967/2021 : AIR 2021 SC 5228, the dispute pertaining to S.C./S.T. Act may also be settled through compromise.

¶14

Since the dispute between the parties is of purely personal/private in nature and the parties have settled their dispute by filing compromise before the trial court and the trial court has also verified the compromise, therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012)10 SCC 303, Shiji and others Vs. Radhika and others MANU/ SC/1341/2011, Manoj Sharma Vs. State of U.P . (2008)16 SCC1, Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014)6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 as well as in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai, Bhimsingh Bhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2017)9 SCC 641, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narain and others (2019)5 SCC 688 , Arun Singh and others vs. State of U.P. (2020) 3 SCC 736, Daxaben vs. The State of Gujrat and others SLP Criminal No. 1132-1155 of 2022 decided on 29.07.2022 , the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jalaun at Orai, arising out of Complaint Case No. 26 of 2022 (Hari Shanker vs. Ramesh Chandra and others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Ata, District Jalaun, are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the appellant.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is allowed.

¶16

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Special Court for compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.5.2023 Praveen

¶18

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

Hari Shankar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Shankar v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Smt. Minakshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Peer Mohammad @ Peeru and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parmatma Yadav @ Parmatma Ram Harakh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Sardar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ankit Agrahari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madhav Singh Rajput and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another