Allowed

Shailesh Kumar Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024/3453/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated under specific IPC sections and the SC/ST Act. Relying on Apex Court precedents regarding settlement and private nature of disputes, the court quashed the FIR, chargesheet, and summoning order despite the SC/ST Act, finding no utility in continuing proceedings after an amicable settlement verified

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.1577 of 2022, including the charge sheet, FIR, and summoning order, were quashed.

Shailesh Kumar Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46750

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3453 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶7

Case called out. None present on behalf of the opposite party no.2.

¶8

Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material available on record.

¶9

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.1577 of 2022 (State Vs. Shailesh Kumar Gupta & others) initiated in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet dated 20.3.2020 arising out of Case Crime No.494 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gurubuxganj, District Raebareli as well as summoning order dated 20.10.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Raebareli in terms of the compromise deed dated 3.7.2023.

¶10

The parties, out of their own free will, have settled their dispute amicably and in furtherance thereof, they have filed a compromise deed dated 3.7.2023 before the Court below. Thereafter, co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order 2.8.2023, has sent the said compromise deed to the trial court with a direction to get the same verified and submit a report and the same has been verified by the Court below vide its order dated 29.8.2023, therefore, proceedings pending against the applicants should be quashed.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer

¶12

by submitting that present matter relates to the provisions of SC/ST Act and being special act, proceedings merely on the basis of compromise should not be quashed but he could not dispute the fact that the dispute between the parties appears to be private in nature and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise was also duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

¶13

Since both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and the court below has verified the compromise deed dated 3.7.2023, no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter pending.

¶14

In the present case, the sections involved are Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha) SC/ST Act.

¶15

In the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 , wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim. The view expressed in the said judgement has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466.

¶16

The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290] discussed and considered the power of this Court in respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties. Further, the three judges Bench of the Apex Court in case of Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2021 SC 5228 observed as:-

¶17

"15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of

¶18

upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.

¶19

16. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a 'special statute' would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."

¶20

In view of the above, if the Court feels that continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in this case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored, it can order for quashing of the FIR or criminal proceedings as it is the duty of the Court to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process.

¶21

Therefore, in view of the above and considering the dictum 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; Narinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 6 SCC 466; 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, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1290], Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2021 SC 5228, Ram Gopal, and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh with Krishnappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2021 SCC Online

¶22

SC 834 as also considering the settlement arrived at between the parties, I am of the considered opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus as continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.

¶23

Accordingly, the entire proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No.1577 of 2022 (State Vs. Shailesh Kumar Gupta & others) initiated in pursuance of the impugned charge sheet dated 20.3.2020 arising out of Case Crime No.494 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (da) (dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gurubuxganj, District Raebareli as well as summoning order dated 20.10.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Raebareli are hereby quashed.

¶24

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed .

¶25

Order Date :- 10.7.2024 Krishna*

¶26

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shailesh Kumar Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Kumar Gupta and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home 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

Subhash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. Lko. and and Another

Shrvan Kumar @ Shravan Kumar Arkvanshi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bablu Alias Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ramesh Chandra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Shivi Kudesia and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow and Another

Adesh Tiwari Alias Harshit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others