High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The parties before this Court had made a request that they have entered into a compromise in this matter and have settled all the disputes between them and now they do not want to proceed with this matter.

4. A perusal of record shows that by way of present criminal appeal legality and validity of the charge sheet dated 18.12.2008 as well as cognizance order dated 06.01.2009 and order under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. dated 10.07.2024 were assailed by the appellant whereby the cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi vide order dated 18.12.2008 and order under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. dated 10.07.2024 was passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi in S.T. No. 176 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 366 of 2008, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before this Court that the compromise entered into between the parties has been made without any coercion or undue influence upon the informant of this case and is a result of free will and consent of the parties.

6. This Court vide orders dated 26.09.2024/24.02.2025 directed the learned trial court to verify the compromise deed in presence of both the parties and whether financial aid provided to the informant-opposite party no. 2 has been returned in favour of the Government or not and after due verification submit its report to this Court.

7. In compliance of the orders dated 26.09.2024/24.02.2025 passed by this Court, learned trial court submitted its verification report dated 17.05.2025 wherein it has been mentioned that the court proceeded to verify the compromise deed and ensured that financial aid provided to the informant has been returned by the informant-opposite party no. 2 in favour of the Government.

8. It appears from perusal of the record that the present case is having a nature of purely private dispute and prima facie it also appears that the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim and except some offence under SC/ST Act, minor offences have been levelled against the accused. Further, the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the informant-opposite party no. 2 without any undue influence.

9. Whether a compromise can be verified and accepted in a case relating to an offence under SC/ST Act has been answered in Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. (2022) 13 SCC 635. Paragraph no. 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- "17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."

10. It is further held in paragraph no. 19 of the said judgment which is quoted herein under:- "19. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case"

11. A perusal of the full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan And Others vs State Of U.P And Another 2022 (8) ADJ 691 reveals that a matter under the SC/ST Act may be compounded in a criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act and there is no need to take recourse of U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for the same.

12. In view of that, this Court finds that since the parties have entered into compromise which has already been verified by the trial court and the compensation amount received by the informant from the Government has already been deposited in the Treasury, now nothing rests in this matter to continue.

13. Hence, the charge-sheet dated dated 18.12.2008 as well as entire proceedings in S.T. No. 176 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 366 of 2008, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi alongwith cognizance order dated 06.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi and order under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. dated 10.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi as well are set aside and quashed and the present criminal appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise entered into by both the parties. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The parties before this Court had made a request that they have entered into a compromise in this matter and have settled all the disputes between them and now they do not want to proceed with this matter.

4. A perusal of record shows that by way of present criminal appeal legality and validity of the charge sheet dated 18.12.2008 as well as cognizance order dated 06.01.2009 and order under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. dated 10.07.2024 were assailed by the appellant whereby the cognizance was taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi vide order dated 18.12.2008 and order under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. dated 10.07.2024 was passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi in S.T. No. 176 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 366 of 2008, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before this Court that the compromise entered into between the parties has been made without any coercion or undue influence upon the informant of this case and is a result of free will and consent of the parties.

6. This Court vide orders dated 26.09.2024/24.02.2025 directed the learned trial court to verify the compromise deed in presence of both the parties and whether financial aid provided to the informant-opposite party no. 2 has been returned in favour of the Government or not and after due verification submit its report to this Court.

7. In compliance of the orders dated 26.09.2024/24.02.2025 passed by this Court, learned trial court submitted its verification report dated 17.05.2025 wherein it has been mentioned that the court proceeded to verify the compromise deed and ensured that financial aid provided to the informant has been returned by the informant-opposite party no. 2 in favour of the Government.

8. It appears from perusal of the record that the present case is having a nature of purely private dispute and prima facie it also appears that the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim and except some offence under SC/ST Act, minor offences have been levelled against the accused. Further, the compromise between the parties is the result of free will and consent of the informant-opposite party no. 2 without any undue influence.

9. Whether a compromise can be verified and accepted in a case relating to an offence under SC/ST Act has been answered in Ramawatar Vs. State of M.P. (2022) 13 SCC 635. Paragraph no. 17 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- "17. On the other hand, where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings. On similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the Act would not be contravened or diminished even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the mere fact that the offence is covered under a "special statute" would not refrain this Court or the High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C."

10. It is further held in paragraph no. 19 of the said judgment which is quoted herein under:- "19. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant-victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case"

11. A perusal of the full Bench judgment in Ghulam Rasool Khan And Others vs State Of U.P And Another 2022 (8) ADJ 691 reveals that a matter under the SC/ST Act may be compounded in a criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act and there is no need to take recourse of U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. for the same.

12. In view of that, this Court finds that since the parties have entered into compromise which has already been verified by the trial court and the compensation amount received by the informant from the Government has already been deposited in the Treasury, now nothing rests in this matter to continue.

13. Hence, the charge-sheet dated dated 18.12.2008 as well as entire proceedings in S.T. No. 176 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 366 of 2008, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi alongwith cognizance order dated 06.01.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjhanpur, District Kaushambi and order under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. dated 10.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi as well are set aside and quashed and the present criminal appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise entered into by both the parties. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad