State of U.P v. Ramkesh and another, arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:136857 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17890 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramkesh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Ramkesh and Harikesh for quashing the proceedings against them in ST No. 79 of 2023, State of U.P. v. Ramkesh and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 574 of 2023, under Sections 324, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, pending before Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai. 3. Earlier, the applicants preferred Application U/s 482 No. 39812 of 2023, wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order on 15.12.2023: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 and perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 79 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramkesh And Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 574 of 2023, under Sections 324, 504, 506 of IPC and under Sections- 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station, Kotwali Orai, District- Jalaun, pending before learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that opposite party No. 2 Gopal Ahirwar has lodged FIR dated 16.07.2023 under Sections- 324, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act against the applicants- Ramkesh and Harikesh in which, after culmination of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 12.08.2023, on which the concerned court below took cognizance on 15.09.2023. Thereafter, parties concerned have settled their dispute outside the court and a compromise dated 05.10.2023 has been prepared in this regard, which has been brought on record as Annexure-9 to this affidavit. 4. It is submitted that no compromise application has yet been filed before the concerned Court below, where criminal proceeding is pending against the applicants and requested to allow the applicants to move compromise application before the concerned Court below. 5. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below, as such said compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. 6. On the request made by learned counsel for the applicants two weeks' time is allowed to the applicants to file compromise application before the concerned Court below. 7. Accordingly, the court concerned Court below is directed that in case such compromise application is filed by the applicants before it within aforesaid period, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. The Court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. 8. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Decision
9. With the aforesaid directions the application stands disposed of." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, compromise between the parties has been verified vide order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun dated 21.03.2024. Copy of the said order is on the record at Page-90 of the petition. 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 against the applicants in ST No. 79 of 2023, State of U.P. v. Ramkesh and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 574 of 2023, under Sections 324, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, pending before Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai, are hereby quashed. 10. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. It is observed that the District Magistrate, Jalaun shall verify as to whether the opposite party no. 2 has received any compensation or not, and in case the compensation amount is found to have been received by the opposite party no. 2 and not returned, the District Magistrate shall proceed to recover the same in accordance with law. 12. Registrar Compliance shall look into compliance of this order. 13. It is always open to the parties to approach before this Court in case verification has been done by playing fraud. Order Date :- 27.8.2024 DS