Satendra v. Pappu and Another) under Sections

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 05.12.2023 in Special Complaint No.90 of 2023 (Satendra Versus Pappu and Another) under Sections 323, 504, 406, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura as well as passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mathura, pending before Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Mathura.

3. It is submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved by respondent no.2 against the present applicants levelling allegation of criminal breach of trust, hurt, criminal intimidation and intentional insult as well as allegation under Section 3(1)(da), (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act. Said application was treated as complaint and summoning order dated 05.12.203 has been passed against the present applicants.

4. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 16.05.2025, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. Simultaneously, learned District Magistrate was directed to verify and send a report to this Court as to whether opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not. For ready reference, order dated 16.05.2025 is quoted herein below :- "Mr. Chandra Kant Tripathi, Advocate, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. Heard Mr. Devesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Chandra Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 05.12.2023 as well as proceedings of Special Complaint No.90 of 2023 (Satendra vs. Pappu & Another), under Sections 323, 504, 406, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Mathura, on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicants have approached this Court by means of filing Criminal Appeal No.234/2024 challenging the summoning order and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the aforesaid appeal vide order dated 23.08.2024. Pursuant to the directions in the aforesaid appeal, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. Copy of the said compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-7 to this application, wherein it has been mentioned that the parties do not want to proceed with the case. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would futile exercise and sheer wastage of time of the Court and will be an 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. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 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. In view of the above, 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 statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. Put up this case on 11.07.2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Chandra Kant Tripathi, Advocate, as counsel for opposite party no.2. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Mathura 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, the same has been returned or not. In case the compensation amount is not returned, the concerned District Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with law to recover the same and send a report accordingly. Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court, Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Mathura has submitted the compromise verification report dated 26.06.2025 along with copy of the compromise verification order dated 24.06.2025 and statement of complainant as well as the accused. As per compromise verification order, compromise application (paper no.14-Ka) has been verified in presence of both the parties who have been identified by their respective counsels. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. Learned court concerned has observed in the order dated 24.06.2025 that complainant Satendra has filed affidavit to the effect that he has not received any compensation from the government department. Certified copy of the order dated 24.06.2025 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.06.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant matter is arising out of complaint, therefore, no compensation has been given to the victim/complainant under the S.C./S.T Act.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for respondent no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

2. The applicants have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 B.N.S.S. for quashing the entire proceeding as well as summoning order dated 05.12.2023 in Special Complaint No.90 of 2023 (Satendra Versus Pappu and Another) under Sections 323, 504, 406, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (r)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura as well as passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Mathura, pending before Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Mathura.

3. It is submitted that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved by respondent no.2 against the present applicants levelling allegation of criminal breach of trust, hurt, criminal intimidation and intentional insult as well as allegation under Section 3(1)(da), (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act. Said application was treated as complaint and summoning order dated 05.12.203 has been passed against the present applicants.

4. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of the Court and arrived at compromise. Having considered the amicable settlement between the parties, this Court, vide order dated 16.05.2025, has relegated the parties before the court below to get their compromise verified. Simultaneously, learned District Magistrate was directed to verify and send a report to this Court as to whether opposite party no.2 has received any compensation or not. For ready reference, order dated 16.05.2025 is quoted herein below :- "Mr. Chandra Kant Tripathi, Advocate, has filed vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 in Court today, which is taken on record. Office is directed to register the same. Heard Mr. Devesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Chandra Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. The present application has been filed to quash the summoning order dated 05.12.2023 as well as proceedings of Special Complaint No.90 of 2023 (Satendra vs. Pappu & Another), under Sections 323, 504, 406, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(r)(s) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Mathura, on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicants have approached this Court by means of filing Criminal Appeal No.234/2024 challenging the summoning order and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the aforesaid appeal vide order dated 23.08.2024. Pursuant to the directions in the aforesaid appeal, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise. Copy of the said compromise deed has been annexed as Annexure-7 to this application, wherein it has been mentioned that the parties do not want to proceed with the case. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the applicants would futile exercise and sheer wastage of time of the Court and will be an 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. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 do not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants. 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. In view of the above, 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 statements of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? Upon due verification of compromise, the court below may pass appropriate order in that regard and send a report to this Court. Put up this case on 11.07.2025, as fresh, showing the name of Mr. Chandra Kant Tripathi, Advocate, as counsel for opposite party no.2. Meanwhile, the District Magistrate, Mathura 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, the same has been returned or not. In case the compensation amount is not returned, the concerned District Magistrate is directed to proceed in accordance with law to recover the same and send a report accordingly. Learned A.G.A. as well as Registrar (Compliance) of this Court shall look into compliance of this order. Till then, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by this Court, Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Mathura has submitted the compromise verification report dated 26.06.2025 along with copy of the compromise verification order dated 24.06.2025 and statement of complainant as well as the accused. As per compromise verification order, compromise application (paper no.14-Ka) has been verified in presence of both the parties who have been identified by their respective counsels. Accordingly, compromise has been verified. Learned court concerned has observed in the order dated 24.06.2025 that complainant Satendra has filed affidavit to the effect that he has not received any compensation from the government department. Certified copy of the order dated 24.06.2025 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.06.2025.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant matter is arising out of complaint, therefore, no compensation has been given to the victim/complainant under the S.C./S.T Act.

7. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in the above eventuality of amicable settlement took place between the parties, instant application may be allowed and the entire criminal proceedings may be quashed. It is further submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise out of their own volition without any duress and buried the hatchet. There is no grudges between them against each other. To quash the cognizance order as well as criminal proceeding, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- (i) B.S.Joshi & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Others; (2003) 4 SCC 675. (ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central