Judge SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act, Bulandshahr in vs P.S. Pahasu, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of learned

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Court on 22.08.2024 proceeded to pass the following order: "1. Heard Mr. Satendra Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant in Session Trial No. 161 of 2020 (State Vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma) arising out of case crime no. 83 of 2020, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(Dh) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Pahasu, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Session Judge Special Judge S.C./S.T. P.A. Act, Bulandshahar as well as to quash the impugned charge sheet no. 71 of 2020 dated 14.05.2020 submitted by the Investigating Officer in case crime no. 83 of 2020 and quash the cognizance order dated 27.07.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge Special Judge S.C./S.T. P.A. Act, Bulandshahar on the basis of compromise dated 28.02.2024.

3. 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 applicant 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.

4. Learned AGA also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

5. 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.

6. 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 period of two weeks 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 through the concerned District Magistrate.

7. A report be called from the concerned District Magistrate whether any compensation was paid to the opposite party no. 2/victim and the said amount has been returned back to the authority concerned 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 20.09.2024 as fresh.

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

3. Thereafter a correction application was preferred on 04.09.2024, wherein the following order was passed: "In Re: Criminal Misc. Correction Application No.2 of 2024 Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to incorporate necessary correction in the prayer clause during the course of the day. Heard Mr. Satendra Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. This application has been filed, seeking liberty of the Court to correct the prayer clause of the present application as well as correction in the order dated 22.08.2024 as per the corrected prayer. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that inadvertently, "Session Trial No. 161 of 2020" in place of "Session Trial No. 961 of 2020" has wrongly been typed in the prayer clause. Due to the aforesaid mistake, the same has also been typed in the order dated 22.08.2024. He, therefore, submits that he may be permitted to correct the prayer clause today itself, mentioning "Session Trial No. 961 of 2020" in place of "Session Trial No. 161 of 2020" and the same may be corrected accordingly in the third line of second paragraph of the order dated 22.08.2024. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court may pleased to correct the order dated 22.08.2024 by mentioning "Session Trial No.961 of 2020" in place of "Session Trial No.161 of 2020" in the third line of second paragraph. Prayer made for is bona fide. Accordingly, the same is allowed. In view of the facts and circumstances, "Session Trial No.161 of 2020 " as occurring in the third line of second paragraph of the order dated 22.08.2024 shall be read as "Session Trial No.961 of 2020". This correction shall form part of the earlier order dated 22.08.2024. Accordingly, two weeks further time is granted to the applicant to appear before the Court below, in compliance of order dated 22.08.2024. With the aforesaid directions, the present correction application stands finally disposed of. "

4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, verification has been done and there is a report of 30.09.2024 by the court of Special Judge SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act, Bulandshahr in Session Trial No. 961 of 2020 regarding the said fact.

5. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that the verification has been done.

6. Certified copies has been taken on record.

7. The application stands allowed.

8. In view of the above, Session Trial No. 961 of 2020 (State Vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma) arising out of case crime no. 83 of 2020, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(Dh) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Pahasu, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Session Judge Special Judge S.C./S.T. P.A. Act, Bulandshahar as well as the impugned charge sheet no. 71 of 2020 dated 14.05.2020 submitted by the Investigating Officer in case crime no. 83 of 2020 and the cognizance order dated 27.07.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge Special Judge S.C./S.T. P.A. Act, Bulandshahar are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 K.K.Tiwari KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Court on 22.08.2024 proceeded to pass the following order: "1. Heard Mr. Satendra Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Kirti Singh, learned counsel for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding against the applicant in Session Trial No. 161 of 2020 (State Vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma) arising out of case crime no. 83 of 2020, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(Dh) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Pahasu, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Session Judge Special Judge S.C./S.T. P.A. Act, Bulandshahar as well as to quash the impugned charge sheet no. 71 of 2020 dated 14.05.2020 submitted by the Investigating Officer in case crime no. 83 of 2020 and quash the cognizance order dated 27.07.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge Special Judge S.C./S.T. P.A. Act, Bulandshahar on the basis of compromise dated 28.02.2024.

3. 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 applicant 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.

4. Learned AGA also does not dispute the correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

5. 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.

6. 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 period of two weeks 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 through the concerned District Magistrate.

7. A report be called from the concerned District Magistrate whether any compensation was paid to the opposite party no. 2/victim and the said amount has been returned back to the authority concerned 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 20.09.2024 as fresh.

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

3. Thereafter a correction application was preferred on 04.09.2024, wherein the following order was passed: "In Re: Criminal Misc. Correction Application No.2 of 2024 Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to incorporate necessary correction in the prayer clause during the course of the day. Heard Mr. Satendra Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. This application has been filed, seeking liberty of the Court to correct the prayer clause of the present application as well as correction in the order dated 22.08.2024 as per the corrected prayer. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that inadvertently, "Session Trial No. 161 of 2020" in place of "Session Trial No. 961 of 2020" has wrongly been typed in the prayer clause. Due to the aforesaid mistake, the same has also been typed in the order dated 22.08.2024. He, therefore, submits that he may be permitted to correct the prayer clause today itself, mentioning "Session Trial No. 961 of 2020" in place of "Session Trial No. 161 of 2020" and the same may be corrected accordingly in the third line of second paragraph of the order dated 22.08.2024. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court may pleased to correct the order dated 22.08.2024 by mentioning "Session Trial No.961 of 2020" in place of "Session Trial No.161 of 2020" in the third line of second paragraph. Prayer made for is bona fide. Accordingly, the same is allowed. In view of the facts and circumstances, "Session Trial No.161 of 2020 " as occurring in the third line of second paragraph of the order dated 22.08.2024 shall be read as "Session Trial No.961 of 2020". This correction shall form part of the earlier order dated 22.08.2024. Accordingly, two weeks further time is granted to the applicant to appear before the Court below, in compliance of order dated 22.08.2024. With the aforesaid directions, the present correction application stands finally disposed of. "

4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, verification has been done and there is a report of 30.09.2024 by the court of Special Judge SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act, Bulandshahr in Session Trial No. 961 of 2020 regarding the said fact.

5. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that the verification has been done.

6. Certified copies has been taken on record.

7. The application stands allowed.

8. In view of the above, Session Trial No. 961 of 2020 (State Vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma) arising out of case crime no. 83 of 2020, under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(Dh) of S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Pahasu, District Bulandshahar, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Session Judge Special Judge S.C./S.T. P.A. Act, Bulandshahar as well as the impugned charge sheet no. 71 of 2020 dated 14.05.2020 submitted by the Investigating Officer in case crime no. 83 of 2020 and the cognizance order dated 27.07.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Session Judge Special Judge S.C./S.T. P.A. Act, Bulandshahar are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 10.2.2025 K.K.Tiwari KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad