Others v. State of U.P. and Another), decided on
Case Details
Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18602 of 2022 Applicant :- Jeetu @ Jitendra Kuma And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Singh Sengar,Vishnu Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Singh Rajput Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Vishnu Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and, Sri Dhirendra Singh Rajput, learned counsel for the informant. 2. Learned counsel for the private parties submit, the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature. Present FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. However, with passage of time, under influence of certain known persons, the parties have been able to resolve their dispute such that at present, they realize, no criminal incident ever took place and the FIR allegations are exaggerated. 3. In the above regard, a written compromise has been entered into between the parties. A copy of the same has been annexed with the supplementary affidavit. 4. In Application U/S 482 No. 17467 of 2022 (Dharamveer And 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 02.01.2023, it has been observed as under: "6. From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a 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 by the learned court below. 7. The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present where, though the allegations made in the FIR do appear to contain the ingredients of a criminal offence, however, in view of settlement having been reached, the chances of conviction are not only bleak but, if such trials are allowed to continue along with all other trials that lie piled up practically in all criminal courts in the state, the continuance of trials in cases such as the instant case may only work to the huge disadvantage of other cases where litigants are crying for justice. 8. In normal circumstances, the court would be loathe to accept some of such compromise arrangements. However, that course does not commend to the court in view of the high pendency of criminal cases and the high propensity to lie and state falsehood that appears to be otherwise rampant in the society - where desire to take revenge appears to sometime over shadow the pure pursuit of justice; where winning a legal battle matters more than doing the right thing; where teaching lesson to one's adversary often appears to be the only purpose of instituting a criminal proceeding. 9. Thus, looking at the prevalent tendencies in the society, a more pragmatic, and less technical approach commends to the court - to let some criminal prosecutions such as the present case be dropped, for the sake of more effective, efficient and proper trial in other cases where the litigants appear to be serious about their rights and more consistent in their approach. 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 Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed. 11. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus may be allowed, subject however to payment of cost to be deposited by the parties before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today. Such cost has to be imposed to let the parties (in this case) in particular and the society in general know that the courts cannot remain a mute spectator to unscrupulous and errant behaviour of its members. A society that will allow its members to misuse its courts, will ultimately suffer and pay a huge cost. Litigants, both genuine and bogus, will always continue to stand in a common queue. The courts have no mechanism to pre-identify and distinguish between the genuine and the bogus litigants. That differentiation emerges only after the hearing is concluded in any case, hearing requires time. In fact, even if the courts were to take punitive action against a bogus litigant, then, being bound by rules of procedure and fairness, such cases are likely to require more time to be devoted to them than a case of two genuine litigants." 5. In such circumstances, though no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any further, however, no firm conclusion may be reached, at this stage, as to complete falsity of the allegations made against the applicants. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus stands allowed, subject however to payment of cost Rs. 10,000/- (2,500 on each private party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today. 6. The Legal Services Committee exists and works for the benefit of those litigants for whom court procedures are difficult to afford. It provides a crucial and essential service to the society itself. It thus appears proper to direct payment of the amount of cost to the Legal Services Committee, as a reminder and warning to the society and its members to introspect and reflect at their actions and deeds and also at the consequences that follow. 7. Subject to the above, the charge-sheet no. 01/2022 dated 14.01.2022 and cognizance order dated 28.03.2022 in S.S.T. No. 10/2022 (State Vs. Amar Singh Kushwaha & Ors.), Case Crime No. 139/2021, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Sirsa Kalar, District Jalaun, are quashed. Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Prakhar Digitally signed by :- PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad