Allowed

Devendra v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2024CRLA/280/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench allowed the criminal appeal and quashed the proceedings against the appellant, Devendra. It held that since the complainant had already compromised with the other co-accused regarding the farm purchase transaction, and the appellant was merely a recommender with no involvement in the alleged offence, the impugned order maintaining proceedings against him was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.08.2023 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.49 of 2022 quashed against the appellant.

Devendra vs State of Up and Another — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:123224

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 280 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Devendra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mrityunjay Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Mrityunjay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned AGA.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') has been filed against the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 passed by Addl. District and Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Amroha in Complaint Case No.49 of 2022 (Hompal Vs. Jasan and others), under Section 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha and further quashing of the entire proceedings of the said case.

¶8

The grounds taken up by learned counsel for appellant for justifying the application which has been rejected by the concerned court that the matter has been initiated over a complaint preferred by respondent no.2 against the appellant alongwith two other persons who were identified and recommended by the appellant for certain transaction in shape of purchase of Broiler Chicken (farm) with consideration of Rs.25,000/- with the respondent no.2. It is crystal clear from the complaint preferred at the behest of respondent no.2 that the role of the appellant was only the recommender of those two persons who purchased the chicken in pursuance of the consideration.

¶9

It is apparent from the record and also admitted by learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the compromise has already been taken place between the respondent no.2 and rest of the two other co-accused persons against whom the complaint was instituted along with the appellant and the same has also been verified by learned court concerned vide order dated 30.01.2023 but the respondent no.2 has not settled the dispute between him and the appellant through the said compromise, whereas the appellant was only the recommender of those two coaccused.

¶10

When it came into knowledge of the appellant regarding compromise and its verification, he preferred an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. on the basis that compromise has already been taken place between respondent no.2 and rest of

¶11

the two other co-accused persons against whom the complaint was instituted along with the appellant and same has also been verified vide order dated 30.01.2023, there is hardly any cause of action available before the learned court concerned for initiating further proceedings in pursuance of the summoning order dated 19.09.2022 but without considering the said facts, learned trial court rejected the said application vider order dated 29.08.2023 which impugned the present appeal.

¶12

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the appeal by way of raising arguments that no compromise has ever been taken place between the appellant and respondent no.2 but at the same time, admitted that compromise has already been taken place with the core issue which was in shape of sale and purchase and the complaint was arisen out of non-payment of Rs.25,000/- in shape of consideration. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 also apprised the Court one fact that the two co-accused already preferred Criminal Appeal No.7663 of 2022 for quashing of the entire proceedings of the present case against him on the basis of the said compromise which was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court.

¶13

After having the contentions of rival parties, the Court finds that once it is presumed that the consideration has been paid and thereafter compromise has been taken place between the respondent no.2 and two other co-accused persons who have been named in the complaint preferred by respondent no.2 himself and the role of the appellant was only recommender as well as he was not at all related to any transaction whatsoever happened and agreeable between the parties i.e. respondent no.2 and rest of the other two co-accused persons who were named in the complaint, the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 is not at all sustainable in the eye of law.

¶14

In view thereof, order dated 29.08.2023 passed by Addl. District and Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Amroha in Complaint Case No.49 of 2022 (Hompal Vs. Jasan and others), under Section 323, 504, 506, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha as well as the entire proceedings of the said case, is hereby quashed against the appellant herein.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 30.7.2024 Vivek Kr.

¶17

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

Devendra v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnadutt Alias Mukhya vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish @ Anukrat Singh and 9 Others vs State of Up and Another

Ravi Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mumtaz and 2 Others vs State of Up

Dhaniram Upadhyay vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mahender and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another