Back
2022 Supreme(All) 548
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
Israr @ Israr Ahmad and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 4373 of 2022
Decided On : 26-07-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Chandra Bhanu Singh.
For the Respondent: Seema Upadhyay.
Point of Law: When dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 - SC/ST Act – Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) – Offence of rioting and voluntarily causing hurt - Quash of proceedings – Compromise - If Court is satisfied that underlying objective of Act would not be contravened or diminished even if felony in question goes unpunished, mere fact that offence is covered under a “special statute” would not refrain this Court or High Court, from exercising their respective powers under Article 142 of Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 8)
Finding of the court :
Complainant who is alleged victim of offence submits that he has entered into compromise with opposite parties and he does not want continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners who are the accused - This Court is noticing this trend every day in large number of cases that after receiving the compensation from the State Government, the complainant enters into compromise with the accused for quashing of the proceedings and a petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. This is a classic case where the complainant, being a member of the S.C. community, lodged an FIR against the accused, who are petitioners herein, and police after investigating the offence filed charge-sheet. After filing of the charge-sheet, the parties have entered into compromise for quashing of the proceedings. In the meantime, the complainant has been paid Rs. 75,000/- as compensation by the State Government.
2. This Court is noticing this trend every day in large number of cases that after receiving the compensation from the State Government, the complainant enters into compromise with the accused for quashing of the proceedings and a petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
3. This Court is of the view that tax payers money is being misused in this process. It would be appropriate to disburse the compensation only on conviction of the accused and not filing of the FIR and submission of the charge-sheet. In cases where the complainant has entered into compromise with the accused for quashing of the proceedings and proceedings are quashed by this Court against the accused in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the State is free to realise the compensation back to the alleged victim.
4. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners, who are present in person and have been duly identified by Mr. C.B. Singh, Advocate, seeking quashing of the proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 820 of 2020, State vs. Israr and Others as well as Charge-sheet No. 90 of 2019 dated 26.2.2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 37 of 2019, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Naseerabad, District Raebareli, pending in the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Raebareli and summoning order dated 6.8.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Raebareli.
5. The complainant (opposite party No. 2) is also present in person who has been identified by his lawyer by Ms. Seema Upadhyay, Advocate.
6. Ground for quashing of the proceedings is compromise arrived at between the parties. The complainant who is alleged victim of offence submits that he has entered into compromise with opposite parties and he does not want continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners who are the accused.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. The offence against the petitioners is trivial in nature except offence under Section 3(1) (da) and (dha) SC/ST Act. The Supreme Court in Ramawater vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 966 has held as under:
“15. Ordinarily, when dealing with offences arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act, the Court will be extremely circumspect in its approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and harassment against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Act is also a recognition of the depressing reality that despite undertaking several measures, the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to various atrocities at the hands of upper-castes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has been enacted keeping in view the express constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15, 17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold objective of protecting the members of these vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based atrocities.
16. 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 pro
