High Court

Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State, Shri Karan Rai, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record.

2. On 19.03.2025 following order was passed by this Court: "1. Mr. Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Special Case No.103 of 2016 (State vs. Sushil Goel and another), arising out of Case Crime No.468 of 2016, under Sections 406, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)v of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Kulpahad, District-Mahoba, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba on the basis of compromise.

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. In this regard, a compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure No.4 of this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would 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 no.2 also does 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. 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, 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?

8. Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

9. Put up this case on 22.04.2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Rajeev Upadhyay as counsel for the opposite party no.2.

10. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Mahoba shall also verify and send a report to this Court as to whether the opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, same has been returned or not.

11. Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order.

12. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a compromise verification report sent by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahoba dated 08.04.2025 along with the order dated 04.04.2025 vide which compromise entered into between the parties has been verified and the compensation report sent by District Magistrate Mahoba dated 16.04.2025 were placed on record, as is evident from the office report dated 21.04.2025. As the compensation was not returned by O.P. No. 2, therefore, on 22.04.2025 following order was passed: "In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 19.03.2025, compromise verification report as well as report regarding no return of the compensation amount by the victim, have been placed on record. At the time of verification of compromise, the O.P. No. 2 agreed to return the compensation given to her. However, in view of the report of the District Magistrate, Mahoba, amount (Rs. 22,500/-) has not been returned as yet. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that O.P. No. 2 shall return the amount of compensation within two weeks. Regarding compensation which the victims receive from State Exchequer, reference is made to the judgement of this Court passed in the case of Vihari and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2024 (129) ACC 548, (Application U/s 482 No. 16162 of 2024, decided on 18.09.2024), wherein the Court has expressed concern observing that measures must be implemented to ensure that compensation relief funds are allocated efficiently and fairly, preventing misuse and supporting genuine victims. In the said case, the Court has further observed that to maintain balance and deter the abuse of special legislation, i.e., the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, courts should invoke legal recourse available under Section 182 I.P.C. holding accountable to those individuals who initiate false prosecution solely for the purpose of securing compensation. In view of the aforesaid, District Social Welfare Officer, Mahoba is directed to place a report before the District Magistrate, Mahoba regarding compensation received by the victim, who, in turn, shall recover the same from the victim in view of the judgement in Vihari (supra). Put up this case on 07th May, 2025, as fresh, along with the aforesaid report. Till then, interim order, granted earlier, shall continue. Registrar (Compliance) shall look into compliance of this order."

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 22.04.2025, a letter of District Social Welfare Officer, Mahoba has been placed on record along with the challan form showing the deposit of Rs. 22,500/- by O.P. No. 2. As per the instructions of learned A.G.A., the victim compensation given to the O.P. No. 2 has been returned. Copy of the instructions is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as the compromise has been entered into between the parties, therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case may be quashed by this Court.

6. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid facts and submits at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsels 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.

10. Accordingly, the proceedings of Special Case No.103 of 2016 (State vs. Sushil Goel and others), arising out of Case Crime No.468 of 2016, under Sections 406, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)da, dha, 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Kulpahad, District-Mahoba, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba, are hereby quashed.

11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 DS

Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State, Shri Karan Rai, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and perused the record.

2. On 19.03.2025 following order was passed by this Court: "1. Mr. Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned AGA-I for the State.

3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Special Case No.103 of 2016 (State vs. Sushil Goel and another), arising out of Case Crime No.468 of 2016, under Sections 406, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)v of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Kulpahad, District-Mahoba, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba on the basis of compromise.

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. In this regard, a compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure No.4 of this application. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would 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 no.2 also does 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. 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, 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?

8. Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court.

9. Put up this case on 22.04.2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Rajeev Upadhyay as counsel for the opposite party no.2.

10. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Mahoba shall also verify and send a report to this Court as to whether the opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not, and in case it is found to have been received, same has been returned or not.

11. Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order.

12. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a compromise verification report sent by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahoba dated 08.04.2025 along with the order dated 04.04.2025 vide which compromise entered into between the parties has been verified and the compensation report sent by District Magistrate Mahoba dated 16.04.2025 were placed on record, as is evident from the office report dated 21.04.2025. As the compensation was not returned by O.P. No. 2, therefore, on 22.04.2025 following order was passed: "In compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 19.03.2025, compromise verification report as well as report regarding no return of the compensation amount by the victim, have been placed on record. At the time of verification of compromise, the O.P. No. 2 agreed to return the compensation given to her. However, in view of the report of the District Magistrate, Mahoba, amount (Rs. 22,500/-) has not been returned as yet. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2 submits that O.P. No. 2 shall return the amount of compensation within two weeks. Regarding compensation which the victims receive from State Exchequer, reference is made to the judgement of this Court passed in the case of Vihari and others v. State of U.P. and another, 2024 (129) ACC 548, (Application U/s 482 No. 16162 of 2024, decided on 18.09.2024), wherein the Court has expressed concern observing that measures must be implemented to ensure that compensation relief funds are allocated efficiently and fairly, preventing misuse and supporting genuine victims. In the said case, the Court has further observed that to maintain balance and deter the abuse of special legislation, i.e., the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, courts should invoke legal recourse available under Section 182 I.P.C. holding accountable to those individuals who initiate false prosecution solely for the purpose of securing compensation. In view of the aforesaid, District Social Welfare Officer, Mahoba is directed to place a report before the District Magistrate, Mahoba regarding compensation received by the victim, who, in turn, shall recover the same from the victim in view of the judgement in Vihari (supra). Put up this case on 07th May, 2025, as fresh, along with the aforesaid report. Till then, interim order, granted earlier, shall continue. Registrar (Compliance) shall look into compliance of this order."

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 22.04.2025, a letter of District Social Welfare Officer, Mahoba has been placed on record along with the challan form showing the deposit of Rs. 22,500/- by O.P. No. 2. As per the instructions of learned A.G.A., the victim compensation given to the O.P. No. 2 has been returned. Copy of the instructions is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as the compromise has been entered into between the parties, therefore, further proceedings against the applicants in the aforesaid case may be quashed by this Court.

6. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the aforesaid facts and submits at the Bar that since the parties concerned have settled their dispute as mentioned above, therefore, he has no objection in quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicants.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsels 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.

10. Accordingly, the proceedings of Special Case No.103 of 2016 (State vs. Sushil Goel and others), arising out of Case Crime No.468 of 2016, under Sections 406, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)da, dha, 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Kulpahad, District-Mahoba, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mahoba, are hereby quashed.

11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. A copy of this order be sent to the lower court forthwith. Order Date :- 7.5.2025 DS