# Golu @ Vijay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 10
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-11
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 2386 of 2022
- **Bench:** Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/golu-vijay-kumar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48703
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860- Sections 323 & 504 -
SC/ST,
Act-Section
3(1)(r),
3(1)(s)-
quashing of cognizance and summoning
order-dispute with regard to irrigation of
the field arose between the informant and
the
servant
of
the
applicant-parties
entered into compromise without any
compulsion with the passage of time-In
the instant case, proceedings u/s 323, 504
are compoundable but the proceedings
under SC/ST Act are not compoundableArticle 142 of the Constitution can be
invoked
for
quashing
of
criminal
proceedings
arising
out
of
'noncompoundable offences'-the compromise
between the parties be accepted-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
7 All. Golu @ Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
11
conflicting claims of the litigating parties
by "ironing out the creases" in a cause or
matter before it.(Para 1 to 11)

The application is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

Ramawatar Vs St. of M.P., CRLA No. 1393 of
2021

## Text

10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any order passed by the court acquitting
the accused or convicting for a lesser
offence
or
imposing
inadequate
compensation, and such appeal shall lie to
the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies
against the order of conviction of such
court."

A reading of the proviso makes it
clear that so far as victim's right of appeal
is concerned, same is restricted to three
eventualities, namely, acquittal of the
accused; conviction of the accused for
lesser offence; or for imposing inadequate
compensation. While the victim is given
opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of
imposing inadequate compensation, but at
the same time there is no provision for
appeal by the victim for questioning the
order of sentence as inadequate, whereas
Section 377 CrPC gives the power to the
State Government to prefer appeal for
enhancement of sentence. While it is open
for the State Government to prefer appeal
for inadequate sentence under Section 377
CrPC but similarly no appeal can be
maintained by victim under Section 372
CrPC on the ground of inadequate
sentence. It is fairly well-settled that the
remedy of appeal is creature of the statute.
Unless same is provided either under Code
of Criminal Procedure or by any other law
for the time being in force no appeal,
seeking enhancement of sentence at the
instance of the victim, is maintainable.
Further we are of the view that the High
Court while referring to the judgment of
this Court in National Commission for
Women v. State (NCT of Delhi) [National
Commission for Women v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2010) 12 SCC 599 : (2011) 1 SCC
(Cri) 774] has rightly relied on the same
and
dismissed
the
appeal,
as
not
maintainable."

9. Above placed case laws makes
it clear that no appeal can be maintained by
the victim under Section 372 CrPC on the
ground of inadequacy of sentence. Thus the
appeal preferred by the victim of the crime
against inadequacy of sentence is not
maintainable and is dismissed as such.
----------
(2022)07ILR A10
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2386 of 2022

Golu @ Vijay Kumar Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Shiv Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860- Sections 323 & 504 -
SC/ST,
Act-Section
3(1)(r),
3(1)(s)-
quashing of cognizance and summoning
order-dispute with regard to irrigation of
the field arose between the informant and
the
servant
of
the
applicant-parties
entered into compromise without any
compulsion with the passage of time-In
the instant case, proceedings u/s 323, 504
are compoundable but the proceedings
under SC/ST Act are not compoundableArticle 142 of the Constitution can be
invoked
for
quashing
of
criminal
proceedings
arising
out
of
'noncompoundable offences'-the compromise
between the parties be accepted-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
7 All. Golu @ Vijay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
11
conflicting claims of the litigating parties
by "ironing out the creases" in a cause or
matter before it.(Para 1 to 11)

The application is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

Ramawatar Vs St. of M.P., CRLA No. 1393 of
2021

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary, J.)

1. 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
''noncompoundable 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.
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 the
litigating parties by "ironing out the
creases" in a cause or matter before it.
Indeed this Court is not a court of
restricted jurisdiction of only disputesettling.
It
is
well
recognised
and
established that this Court has always been
a law- maker and its role travels beyond
merely dispute-settling. It is a "problem
solver in the nebulous areas" (see K.
Veeraswami v. Union of India [(1991) 3
SCC 655 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 734] but the
substantive statutory provisions dealing
with the subject matter of a given case
cannot be altogether ignored by this Court,
while making an order under Article 142.
Indeed, these constitutional powers cannot,
in any way, be controlled by any statutory
provisions but at the same time these
powers are not meant to be exercised when
their exercise may come directly in conflict
with what has been expressly provided for
in a statute dealing expressly with the
subject."

8. In the instant case, the applicant
has been charged with Section 3 (1) (r) (s)
of SC/ST Act, which are quoted below:-

"3(1) (r) intentionally insults or
intimidates with intention to humiliate a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribes in any place within public
view:

3(1) (s) abuses any member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by a
caste name in any place within public
view:"

9. From perusal of the record, it is
apparent that parties have entered into
compromise 22.12.2021, wherein it has
been categorically stated in paragraph no.3
that the the dispute with regard to irrigation
of the field arose between the informant
and the servant of the applicant. On the
other hand, no altercation between the
informant and the applicant took place and
the applicant settled the matter. Since the
informant without any compulsion entered
into a compromise and wishes to drop the
present criminal proceedings against the
accused-applicant, then the overriding
objection of SC/ST Act would not be
overwhelmed
if
the
proceedings
are
quashed. It further appears that the opposite
7 All. Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai Vs. State of U.P.
13
party no. 2, who would be the key
prosecution witness, if the trial were to
proceed, has declared his unequivocal
intent to turn hostile at the trial. In such
circumstances, it is apparent that merits and
truth apart, the proceedings in trial, if
allowed to continue, may largely be a waste
of precious time of the learned court below.

10.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case
and
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties regarding the compromise entered
into between the parties and taking all these
factors into consideration cumulatively, the
compromise between parties be accepted and
further taking into account the legal position
as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra), the present application deserves to
be allowed.

11. Accordingly, it is allowed. The
proceedings of the 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 is hereby
quashed.
----------
(2022)07ILR A13
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5473 of 2022

Atul Kumar Singh @ Atul Rai ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
Counsel for the Applicant:
Kaustubh Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code,1860-Sections 120B, 167,
195A, 218, 306, 504 & 506-applicant is a
Member
of
Parliament
having
23
criminal history-victim registered her
case against a 'Bahubali' , a criminal
turned
politician,
who
later
on
attempted to commit suicide along with
her friend within the precincts of the
Supreme Court-they were admitted to
hospital in very serious and critical
conditions and later on died-victim's
dignity, honour and image were being
besmirch and tarnished and she was
subjected to cruelty both physically and
mentally-Hence, the bail application is
rejected.(Para 1 to 20)

B. There is responsibility of civil society
as well to rise above the parochial and
narrow
considerations
of
caste,
community etc and to ensure that a
candidate
with
criminal
background
does not get elected. There is an unholy
alliance between organized crime, the
politicians and the bureaucrats and this
nexus
between
them
have
become
pervasive reality. Alarming number of
criminals
reaching
Parliament
and
Election
Commission
of
India
are
required to take effective measures to
wean away criminals from politics and
break unholy nexus between criminal
politicians and bureaucrats.(Para 18 to
20)

The application is rejected. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Public Interest Foundation & ors. Vs U.O.I. &
anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)