High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26228 of 2022 Applicant :- Aasif And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rewti Raman Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shravan Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Shri Rewti Raman Patel, learned counsel for the applicants; learned A.G.A. for the State and, Shri Shravan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. Earlier, the below quoted order dated 13.7.2022 was passed in Application u/s 482 No. 14852 of 2022: "Heard Mr. Rewti Raman Patel, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Shravan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial No.51 of 2015 (State vs. Aasif and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.264 of 2015, under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Hasayan, District-Hathras, pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, POCSO-I, Hathras. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 has married applicant no.3, Junaid and is living happily. As the opposite party no.2 has no grudge against the applicants, therefore, she has entered into compromise with the applicants and in this regard, the parties have moved applications before the concerned court below mentioning therein that they do not want to press this case. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings before the court below and the same is not only sheer wastage of time of the Court but also abuse of the process of law. Learned AGA, however, submits that it is the concerned court below, which has to verify the fact as to whether the parties have entered into compromise, hence the applicants may approach the concerned court below and move an application with respect to compromise between the parties, which will be decided in accordance with law. In view of the above, both the parties are directed to appear before the court below along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and be permitted to file a proper compromise deed. It is expected that the trial court may fix a date for the verification of the compromise and after ensuring the presence of parties, pass an appropriate order with respect to the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. While passing the order verifying the compromise, the concerned court shall also record the statement of the parties as to whether all the terms and conditions mentioned in the original compromise deed, so filed, have been fulfilled or not? The court in that scenario will allow the parties to obtain certified copy of the report as well as compromise and it will be open to the applicants to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings. Till verification of compromise between the parties by the court concerned, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.
Decision
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of." 3. In compliance of the above order, the parties are stated to have reconciled their civil disputes which gave rise to the present prosecution. As to that, it has been submitted, exaggerated allegations came to be made arising from misunderstandings and misgivings which now stand resolved. Accordingly, the compromise reached between the parties allowing for criminal prosecution to be withdrawn has been verified by the learned court below/Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court no.1, Hathras. 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. 12,500/- (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 entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2015 (State vs Aasif & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 264 of 2015, under Sections 323, 354, 452, 504 I.P.C. & Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Police Station - Hasayan, District - Hathras, are quashed. Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Prakhar Digitally signed by :- PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad