Prashant Prakash Singh Alias Rahul Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40095

Court No. - 80

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 612 of 2024

Appellant :- Prashant Prakash Singh Alias Rahul Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The parties before this Court had made a request that they have entered into a compromise in this matter and have settled all the disputes between them and now they do not want to proceed with this matter.

¶8

A perusal of record shows that by way of instant criminal appeal preferred against the impugned summoning order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Azamgarh in S.T No. 226 of 2020 (State Vs. Itendra Yadav and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 274 of 2019, under Sections 323, 506 IPC, and Sections 3(1)(R) and 3(1)(S) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh on the basis of compromise dated 10.11.2022 between the parties.

¶9

It was brought to the notice of this Court that the parties have entered into compromise and they have settled their disputes and the compromise has been verified by the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Azamgarh. A report in this regard has been sent by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Azamgarh dated 03.08.2024 which is available on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- given to the informant of this case by the Government has been deposited through challan in the Treasury Office, Azamgarh in favour of Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari on 08.05.2023.

¶11

It appears from perusal of the record that the present case is having a nature of purely private dispute and prima facie it also appears that the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim and except the offences under the

¶12

SC/ST Act minor offences have been levelled against the accused. Further, the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the complainant without any undue influence.

¶13

Whether a compromise can be verified and accepted in a case relating to an offence under SC/ST Act has been answered in Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. (2022) 13 SCC 635 . Paragraph no. 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:-

¶14

"17. 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."

¶15

It is further held in paragraph no. 19 of the said judgment which is quoted herein under:-

¶16

"19. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case"

¶17

A perusal of the full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan And Others vs State Of U.P And Another 2022 (8) ADJ 691 reveals that a matter under the SC/ST Act may be compounded in a criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act and there is no need to take recourse of U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for the same.

¶18

In view of that this Court finds that since the parties have

¶19

entered into compromise which has already been verified by the trial court and the compensation amount received by the informant from the Government has already been deposited in the Treasury, now nothing rests in this matter to continue.

¶20

Hence, the summoning order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Azamgarh in S.T No. 226 of 2020 (State Vs. Itendra Yadav and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 274 of 2019, under Sections 323, 506 IPC, and Sections 3(1) (R) and 3(1)(S) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh is hereby set aside and the present criminal appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise entered into by both the parties.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Vikram

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant Prakash Singh Alias Rahul Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Prakash Singh Alias Rahul Singh v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases