High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:153684 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15672 of 2024 Applicant :- Beniprasad And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rafeek Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ramesh Chandra,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Triloki Singh, learned AGA, Sri Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants - (1) Beniprasad, (2) Laxmi alias Laxmichand Gangele, and (3) Channu alias Chiranjilal alias Chandkishore, challenging the proceedings of Special Case No. 82 of 2016, State v. Beniprasad and others, in pursuance of compromise dated 15.03.2023, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba, District Mahoba, under Sections 323, 325, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)X of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 arising out of Case Crime No. 65 of 2016. 3. On 19.07.2024 this Court has passed the following order: "1. Mr. Ramesh Chand Mathur, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos.2 to 4 in the Court today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Rafeek Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ramesh Chand Mathur, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 to 4 and Mr. Mayank Awasthi, learned counsel for the State. 3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Special Case no.82/2016 (State vs. Beniprasad and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.65 of 2016, under Sections 323, 325, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Mahoba, District- Mahoba, in pursuance of the Compromise dated 15.03.2023 and a further prayer to stay all further proceeding of the aforesaid case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and a compromise has been entered into between the parties. The copy of the said compromise/mutual deed, filed before the court below, is annexed as Annexure No.5 to this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would be a futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court and will be abuse of process of law. Hence, proceedings of the aforesaid case be quashed in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303. 5. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 also do not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 6. Whether a compromise has taken place or not can at best be ascertained by the court, where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it. 7. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with copy of compromise deed as well as a certified copy of this order within a two week from today. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, after hearing the informant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? The facts regarding the amount towards compensation as received and stated to be returned, shall also be verified. 8. Upon due verification of compromise as well as compensation amount, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. 9. Put up this case on 20th August, 2024, as fresh, at 02:00 p.m showing the name of Mr. Ramesh Chand Mathur as learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4. 10. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a letter of Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba dated 17.08.2024 has been placed on record along with affidavits, statements of the parties and letter from District Social Welfare Officer, Mahoba informing that compensation amount has already been returned by opposite party no. 2, accordingly, the compromise has been verified. 5. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, they have no objection in quashing the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants. 6. Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases:- 1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, (2003)4 SCC 675; 2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2008) 9 SCC 677, 3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, (2008) 16 SCC 1; 4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, and 5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, ( 2014) 6 SCC 466. 7. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non-compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278, in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute. 9. Accordingly, the proceedings of Special Case No. 82 of 2016, State v. Beniprasad and others, pending against the applicants in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba, District Mahoba, under Sections 323, 325, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)X of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 arising out of Case Crime No. 65 of 2016, are hereby quashed. 10. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud. Order Date :- 20.9.2024 DS