State v. Mohar Singh & Anr.), arising out of Case Crime No
Case Details
Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32585 of 2022 Applicant :- Mohar Singh Alias Mohar Singh Yadav And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajendra Prasad Maury Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 879 of 2015 (State Vs. Mohar Singh & Anr.), arising out of Case Crime No. 762 of 2014, under Section - 327 I.P.C., Police Station - Bar, District - Lalitpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Lalitpur. 3. Earlier, the following order was passed on 13.07.2022 in Application U/S 482 No. 14748 of 2022 (Mohar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) :
Legal Reasoning
"Heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of entire proceedings of Case No. 879 of 2015 (State of U.P. Vs. Mohar Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No.762 of 2014, under Section 327 I.P.C., Police Station- Bar, District- Lalitpur, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Lalitpur. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have amicably compromised their dispute and in respect thereof, they have annexed an original compromise deed endorsed as Annexure - 4 to the affidavit, therefore, the aforesaid case may be decided in terms of the compromise between the parties. Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court. Both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court below on 20.07.2022 and file their comprise application. The court below is directed to pass an order on the said compromise application and all formalities completed within eight weeks from that date. The concerned Magistrate will sent a report to this Court whether the said compromise took place or not.
Decision
Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of with a direction to the court concerned that if any such compromise is filed before it, it shall issue notices to all the signatories to the compromise requiring their personal presence and, thereafter, proceed to verify the compromise. If the aforesaid compromise is verified, a report to that effect shall be prepared by the court and the compromise will be made part of the record. 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. For a period of three months, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case. Counsel for the applicant is directed to inform the counsel for the opposite party No. 2, if any, before the court below or the opposite party No. 2 itself regarding the date fixed by this Court for appearing before the court below." 4. In compliance of the above order, the parties have been able to reach a written settlement dated 20.07.2022, that has been duly verified by the learned court below, vide order dated 20.07.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur. 5. As to the background fact, it has been submitted, the applicants and the opposite party no.2 were employees of the same corporation. There arose certain dispute between them, that gave rise to the present criminal prosecution owing to misunderstanding and misgivings and not on account of any real occurrence. 6. 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." 7. 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. 7,500/- (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. 8. 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. 9. Subject to the above, the entire proceedings of Case No. 879 of 2015 (State Vs. Mohar Singh & Anr.), arising out of Case Crime No. 762 of 2014, under Section - 327 I.P.C., Police Station - Bar, District - Lalitpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Lalitpur are quashed. Order Date :- 24.1.2023 Abhilash Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad