The court affirmed the power to quash criminal proceedings arising out of non-compoundable offences and extended the power to offences arising out of special status such as SC/ST Act.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Chowdhary, J.

Heard Dr. S.B.Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeshwar Singh and Rakesh Chand Srivastava learned A.G.A. assisted by Madnesh Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material on record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of proceeding (including cognizance and summoning order) of S.T. No. 164 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime no. 30 of 2019, under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S. Aurai, District Bhadohi pending in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bhadohi Gyanpur pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that an FIR had come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With passage of time, they have been able to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably in writing. It is further submitted that vide order dated 08.02.2022, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had referred the matter for verification of the compromise, which has been verified but the learned Court below has further observed that since the matter pertains to offence under SC/ST Act, the same is refused to be accepted. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the matter under SC/ ST Act can be compromised and in support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 25.10.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2021 Ramawatar Vs. State of Madya Pradesh.

4. In the instant case, proceedings under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) have been sought to be quashed on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties. Although Section 323, 504 I.P.C. are compoundable, but the sole question before this Court is as to whether proceedings under SC/ST Act can be quashed on the basis of compromise?

5. To consider the question, whether proceedings SC/ST Act can be quashed or not, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) has framed following two questions for consideration:-

“1.whether the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked for quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of ‘non-compoundable offences?

2. If yes, then whether the power to quash proceedings can be extended to offences arising out of special status such as SC/ST Act Act.”

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court after due consideration answered the first question in affirmative.

7. Dealing with the second question, the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 14 has observed as under:

14. With respect to the second question before us, it must be noted that even though the powers of this Court under Article 142 are wide and far-reaching, the same cannot be exercised in a vacuum. True it is that ordinary statutes or any restrictions contained therein, cannot be constructed as a limitation on the Court’s power to do “complete justice”.

However, this is not to say that this Court can altogether ignore the statutory provisions or other express prohibitions in law. In fact, the Court is obligated to take note of the relevant laws and will have to regulate the use of its power and discretion accordingly. The Constitution Bench decision in the case of Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India & Anr has eloquently clarified this point as follows:

“48. The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice “between the parties in any cause or matter pending before it”. The very nature of the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, except perhaps to balance the equities between the conflicting claims of