JUDGMENT

Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent and perused the record.

2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 198 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 195 of 2019, under Sections 147 , 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jagner, District Agra including the charge sheet and summoning order on the basis of compromise dated 19.10.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that pursuant to order dated 17.4.2023, compromise deed entered into between the parties was sent to trial court for verification. He further submitted that pursuant to the said order, applicants and opposite party no.2 appeared before the court concerned and their compromise dated has been duly verified by the court below vide order dated 02.05.2023, which is supplied today and is also taken on record.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that as both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and compromise executed between the parties have already duly verified, therefore, proceedings pending against the applicants should be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also conceded that both the parties have already amicably settled their dispute, the compromise, which was executed between the parties has been duly verified by the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court and opposite party no.2 himself does not want to proceed further on merits of the case and he is having no objection if the proceedings pending against the applicant is quashed on the basis of compromise.

7. 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 but 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.

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

9. 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.

10. 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,