JUDGMENT

Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

Heard Mr. Sandeep Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicants to quash the entire proceeding of Session Trial No.603 of 2019 under Sections 323 , 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1) (D),3(1)(Dh) SC/ST Act arising out of Case Crime No.179 of 2019, Police Station Jagdishpura District Agra on the basis of compromise.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the parties have entered into compromise and in compliance of order dated 08.07.2022, the parties have filed compromise application before the court below, which was verified by the court below vide order dated 25.08.2022. He has further submitted that since parties have settled the dispute, opposite party no.2 also does not want to proceed with trial, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending.

4. In the present case, the sections involved are Sections 3(1)(D),3(1) (Dh) SC/ST.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested to pursue the criminal case. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer by submitting that present matter relates to the provisions of SC/ST Act and being Special Act, proceedings merely on the basis of compromise should not be quashed. He has further submitted that it is a serious matter that a false FIR under the SC/ST Act is lodged against innocent persons ruined their image in the society just for taking huge money from the State. He has further submitted that since the victim entered into compromise, therefore, a proceeding under Section 344 Cr.P.C. should be initiated against her for giving false evidence and levelling false and concocted allegations. However, he could not dispute the fact that the dispute between the parties appears to be private in nature and both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise was also duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court.

6. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

In the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein the Apex Court has referred to a number of matters for the proposition that even a non-compoundable offence can also be quashed on the ground of a settlement agreement between the offender and the victim. The view expressed in the said judgement has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2014) 6 SCC 466.

7. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in [AIR 2019 SC 1296] discussed and considered the power of this Court in respect of quashing of non compoundable offences on the basis of the compromise executed between the parties. Further, the three judges Bench of the Apex Court in case of Ramawatar v. State of M.P. AIR 2021 SC 5228 observed as:-

"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 uppercastes. The Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the Act has b