Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the application filed by INDI Alliance's candidate from Varanasi Lok Sabha seat Ajai Rai and others to quash proceedings in a 2010 case. 

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh refused to accept the compromise entered between the accused persons and the complainant.

"There is no statutory basis to quash the proceedings under Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act even after compromise between the complainant and accused-applicants for the offence under IPC. The compromise in part is not permissible," court said. 

Ajai Rai, Santosh Rai, Chandra Bhushan Rai, Salil Dubey and Vijay Guru @ Vijay Kumar Pandey challenged the proceedings of sessions trial under Sections 147, 148, 448, 511, 323, 504, 506, 120B of the IPC, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act in a case registered at Chetganj Police Station in Varanasi The trial is pending in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act).

In the case, the First Information Report (FIR) was filed on March 26, 2010, by one Bhanu Pratap Singh against six persons.

Seeking relief before the high court, the counsel for the applicants submitted that during the examination of prosecution witnesses, the applicants and Bhanu Pratap Singh entered into a compromise on September 28, 2023, and on the basis of said compromise the instant application under Section 482 CrPC had been preferred by the applicants to quash the further proceeding of the aforesaid session trial.

It was further submitted that since the matter had been compromised between the applicants and Bhanu Pratap Singh with regard to offences under IPC, therefore, further proceeding under Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act were also liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General for the State opposed the applicants' plea, arguing that they faced non-compoundable charges under Section 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3(1) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, making compromise impossible.

He also pointed out that accused Ajay Rai, an ex-MLA, had a long criminal history of 27 cases.

The single judge bench noted that the trial is currently at an advanced stage. "So far as alleged compromise between the applicants and complainant for the offence under IPC is concerned, it is not in dispute that U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act is a special Act. The offence punishable under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act is an independent offence", it underscored.  

Court emphasised that the offences under the special Act were brought by the State Government, not by the complainant, making it a state case, therefore, it was the responsibility of the State to prosecute the accused under the U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.

"No compromise with regard to offence under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster Act between the applicants and the State can take place", the bench stressed.

Therefore, it dismissed the application and refused to quash the proceedings against the applicants.

Case Title: Ajai Rai And 4 Others v. State of U.P. and Another