The case is called out.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Advocate has filed power on behalf of the opposite party no.2, be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A for the State.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the accused applicant involved in the case crime no.91/2012 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 279 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Mall, District - Lucknow. A copy of the application has already been given in the office of G.A.
Learned counsel for the applicant accused and learned counsel for the complainant has jointly submitted that the parties involved in the incident under the aforesaid case crime have amicably settled their dispute.
Learned counsel further submits that they have entered into a written compromise on 16.9.2019 executed between the accused applicant and opposite party no.2, which is pending before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow.
On the basis of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the complainant along with the learned counsel for the applicant accused prayed that the proceeding of special trial No.540/2017 arisen out of the aforesaid case crime No.91/2012 be quashed.
In case crime No.91/2012 the accused applicants before the court are charged under Sections 323, 504, 506, 279 IPC along with Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act.
So far as the offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC are concerned, they compoundable at the instance of person to whom such heard or intimidation is caused in accordance with Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. relating to compounding of offences. Other offences from which the accused applicants are charged under the IPC and Section 3(1)X of the SC/ST Act are triable by Special Court in the rank of Session Judge, however, the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 are triable by Magistrate but since Magistrate triable cases are connected with offences under Section 3(1)X of SC/ST Act, therefore, they are triable by Special Court under SC/ST Act.
The question came before the court that when the parties to the incident have fortunately reached on amicable settlement, whether they are entitled to get their case disposed in the light of settlement even in the non compoundable offences and offences under Section 3(1)X SC/ST Act pending in the special court of SC/ST Act. The court took into consideration the cases, which is quoted herunder:-
"In the case of Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2008) 9 SCC 677, Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the case where the parties have entered into compromise and it was agreed that all the allegations and counter allegations would be withdrawn. In para 31 of the judgment the Apex Court observed that the continuation of the criminal proceedings after compromise would be a futile exercise. Para 31 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:-
On an overall view of the facts as indicated hereinabove and keeping in mind the decision of this Court in B.S. Joshi case and the compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank as also Clause 11 of the consent terms filed in the suit filed by the Bank, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in the quashing of the criminal proceedings, since, in our view, the continuance of the same after the compromise arrived at between the parties would be a futile exercise.
In the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582, Hon'ble Apex court observed in para-6 of the judgment that the disputes which involved the question of purely personal in nature, Court should ordinarily accept the terms of compromise even in the criminal proceedings. This approach has been found to be common sense approach based on ground realities. Para -6 of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow.:
We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.
In the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Ors. (2008) 16 SCC 1, Hon'ble Apex Court considering the B.S. Joshis' Case 2004(9) SCC 47, observed that Section 320 Cr.P.C. does not limit the discretion of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In para-8 of the said judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "it is no doubt true that the first information report was the basis of the investigation by the police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of the personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. What we do say that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the fact of the case."
In para-27, Hon'ble Court observed that " however in some other cases(like those akin to a civil nature), the proceedings can be quashed by the High Court if parties have come to an amicable settlement even though the provisions are not compoundable."
In the backdrop of facts of the case discussed hereinabove and the amicable settlement arrived between the parties to the incident which have taken place and a written compromise dated 16.9.2019 made Annexure-1 to this petition, following directions is being issued.
The applicants and the opposite party no.2 are directed to appear before the Court concerned/Special Court under SC/ST Act and to place the said compromise in original before the Court.
In the event, the said compromise is presented before the Special Court where the trial of S.T No.540/2017 arisen out of case crime No.91/2012 under Sections 279, 323, 504, 506 IPC along with Section 3(1)X SC/ST Act is being tried, the court shall take the same on record and made verification in accordance with the provisions of law in personal presence of the parties.
The court concerned is further directed to consider the compromise for dropping of the proceeding in view of the case laws discussed hereinabove in the body of the order pending before it pursuant to the case crime No.91/2012 for disposal of the Sessions Trial No.540/2017, according to the law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cited case laws.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Gaurav/-