Allowed

Dinesh Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2023CRLA/9594/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an appeal against a summoning order under the SC/ST Act. The appellants and State counsel agreed the case arose from a private dispute amicably settled through the Court's Mediation Centre on February 7, 2023. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding quashing proceedings after private settlements, the Court quashed the proceedings as abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned summoning order dated 22.03.2022 and all proceedings in Complaint Case No. 98 of 2020 are quashed so far as it relates to the appellants.

Dinesh Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9594 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Singh Singraur Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Chandra Pal Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anuj Kumar Gupta, Advocate holding brief for Shri Vnay Kumar Singh Singraur, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Chandra Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 as well as leaned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been moved by the appellants, namely- Dinesh Kumar, Jay Pal, Neena Pal, Kiran Pal and Dharmendra with the prayer to allow the instant criminal appeal and set aside and quash the impugned summoning order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Jude, Sambhal situated at Chandausi in Complaint Case No. 98 of 2020 (CNR No. UPSL 01004384/2021 (Vijaypal Vs. Manveer Singh and others), under Sections 406, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Asmauli, District Sambhal.

¶7

Learned counsel for appellants as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 jointly submit that due to some misunderstanding a complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 against the appellants and by passing the impugned summoning order the appellants were summoned to face trial under Sections 406, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act during the course of trial better sense prevailed on the parties and they have amicably settled the dispute by entering into a written compromise and on the request of the parties the dispute was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court, vide order dated 12.12.2022 and as per the report of the Mediation Centre of this Court of date 7.2.2023 all the dispute between the parties have settled.

¶8

It is vehemently submitted jointly that since all the dispute between the parties have been settled amicably with the help of Mediation Centre of this Court the proceedings of the instant case before the trial court is nothing but the abuse of process of the law and the pendency of the same may again generate a

¶9

fresh round of litigation between the parties, thus keeping in view the settlement arrived at Mediation Centre of this Court the summoning order as well as all the proceedings be set aside/ quashed.

¶10

Learned AGA would have no objection to the request of the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as the matter is pertaining to the private dispute between the parties as the complaint where there is o case of compensation by the State Government.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that under the orders of this Court the dispute between the parties was referred for mediation and the report of Mediation Centre is available on record in original and a copy of the same has also been placed on record by filing supplementary affidavit dated 30.4.2023 whereby it may be inferred that all the disputes pending between the parties have amicably been settled with the help of mediators and a report prepared by the Mediation Centre of 7.2.2023 has been submitted which has been duly assigned by the parties as well as by the mediators. Power of attorney allegedly executed by the appellants has also been made part of settlement arrived at between the parties. Thus, it appears that the dispute between the parties have been amicably settled with the help of meditation and the same was a private dispute pertaining tot he payment of some money and neither the society nor the public at large was having any stake therein.

¶12

Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2021, 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 Jhakhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 as well as in a recent case decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 4.10.2017 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 1723 of 2017, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549 of 2016 Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai, Bhimsingh Bhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujrat reported in (2017)9 SCC 641, MANU/SC/1241/2017, 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. 11321155 of 2022 decided on 29.07.2022, the impugned summoning order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional District and Sessions Jude, Sambhal situated at Chandausi in Complaint Case No. 98 of 2020 (CNR

¶13

No. UPSL 01004384/2021 (Vijaypal Vs. Manveer Singh and others), under Sections 406, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) Da, Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station Asmauli, District Sambhal and the proceedings of the instant case, are hereby quashed, so far it relates to the appellants.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 2.5.2023 Muk

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dinesh Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar and 4 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

Prem Babu Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Balkeshwar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lalsa Rajbhar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navrati Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhikham Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajeet Vs State of U.P. and Another