Allowed

Pankaj Tiwari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024/2064/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed criminal proceedings S.T. No.2219/2022 challenging convictions under IPC and SC/ST Act provisions following a verified compromise between parties, relying on Supreme Court precedents granting quashing powers for guilty offences.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire criminal proceeding S.T. No.2219/2022 against Pankaj Tiwari and others based on the verified compromise report.

Pankaj Tiwari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19675

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2064 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj Tiwari And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dheerendra Kr. Agnihotri,Vijay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for the State and Sri Pramod Kumar, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed Vakalatnama. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record.

¶7

By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed the following main relief:-

¶8

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of S.T. No.2219/2022, State versus Pankaj Tiwari and others, in Case Crime No. 0141/2022 under section 147, 323, 504, 427 IPC & section 3 (1) (da), 3 (1) (dha) SC/ST Act, P.S. Bazarkhala, District-Lucknow, pending in the court of Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow, on the basis of Compromise Verification Report dated 07.02.2024, as contained in Annexure No.5 to this petition, in the interest of justice."

¶9

In this case, the petitioners have initially filed Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing Application U/S 482 No.12604 of 2023 wherein this Court vide order dated 22.12.2023 directed the parties to appear before the trial court concerned and the trial court was directed to verify the contents and parties of the compromise deed.

¶10

In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise deed was filed before the learned Court below i.e. Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow, who vide order/ report dated 07.02.2024 has verified the contents and parties of the compromise deed and submitted report to the extent that the parties and contents of the compromise deed are genuine and they have entered into the compromise by free-will.

¶11

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case.

¶12

The Apex Court in re: Unnikrishnan alias Unnikuttan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 343, has observed that even if the offence(s) in question is / are not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 Cr.P.C. even then considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question the Constitutional Court may allow the parties to compound such offence(s) on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

¶13

Not only the above, considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question and other dictums of the Apex Court in re: B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; State of Rajasthan vs. Shambhu Kewat, (2014) 4 SCC 149; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Deepak (2014) 10 SCC 285; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Manish (2015) 8 SCC 307; J.Ramesh Kamath vs. Mohana Kurup (2016) 12 SCC 179; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Rajveer Singh (2016) 12 SCC 471 and Parbatbhai Ahir vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case i.e. S.T. No.2219 of 2022 (supra) are hereby quashed in respect of the present petitioners on the basis of compromise.

¶14

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has stated that the amount of compensation, which was received by opposite party no.2, shall be returned to the Department of Samaj Kalyan from where he had received the aforesaid compensation within two weeks from today.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed .

¶16

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶17

Order Date :- 4.3.2024 RBS/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Tiwari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Tiwari and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home at Lko.

Brijesh Kumar Verma Alias Tillu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Dr. R.K. Shrivastava @ Ratnesh Kumar Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Affairs Govt. Lko. and Another

Gunjan Verma vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Rajesh Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Waseem @ Chhotu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others