Allowed

Surendra Singh and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024CRLA/862/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal against a charge-sheet and cognizance order. The court quashed proceedings under the SC/ST Act and the IPC after the parties amicably settled their dispute via a compromise deed, citing Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing to secure justice and end disputes.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of entire proceedings, set-aside of charge-sheet dated 26.08.2014 and cognizance order dated 07.02.2017.

Surendra Singh and 5 Others vs State of Up and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113175

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 862 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Surendra Singh And 5 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishe Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶7

The instant appeal has been filed to set-aside the impugned charge-sheet dated 26.08.2014 as well as cognizance order dated 07.02.2017 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad in S.S.T. No. 66 of 2019 (State vs. Surendra Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.203 of 2014, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kundarki, District- Moradabad as well as to stay the further proceedings of abovementioned case pending in the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for appellants submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise by way of preferring a compromise deed dated 03.04.2023, which has been verified by the concerned court and the same is kept on record, this fact has also been ascertained by learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶9

The parties have amicably settled their dispute and fact of compromise has been confirmed and admitted by learned counsel for opposite parties and has been jointly submitted that there would be no harm and error and would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings may be quashed in light of the compromise.

¶10

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 , has observed in para 58 of the said judgment that where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion,

¶11

continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is resorted; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.

¶12

In the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandraojirao Angre, [(1988) 1 SCC 692] , Hon'ble the Apex Court has also observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e. matrimonial, family disputes, etc., the Court may consider "special facts", "special feature" and quash the criminal proceedings to encourage genuine settlement of disputes between the parties.

¶13

Keeping in mind the position of law and facts, circumstances of the case, the entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 66 of 2019 (State vs. Surendra Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.203 of 2014, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 325 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kundarki, District- Moradabad, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad, is hereby quashed and the impugned charge-sheet dated 26.08.2014 and cognizance order dated 07.02.2017 are hereby set-aside .

¶14

8. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed .

¶15

This order is being passed by this Court after hearing the contesting parties and perusing the records kept on record preferred on behalf of the appellant. If at all, opposite party no.2 feels that he has been duped or betrayed, then in that event, he may file recall application explaining the reasons for filing the said application.

¶16

The parties may file the copy of this order before the court concerned within two weeks from today.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Saif

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Surendra Singh and 5 Others v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh and 5 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek @ Tandan @ Aryan Maurya vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Naresh Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mumtaz and 2 Others vs State of Up

Ashu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Yadav @ Vicky vs State of U.P. and Another

Natthi vs State of U.P. and Another