High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41898 of 2018 Applicant :- Sanjeev and Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhagwan Das Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Singh,Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Bhagwan Das learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Amit Kumar Singh learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 54/18 under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jakhaura, District Lalitpur, pending in the court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, District Lalitpur. 3. On 20.11.2018, following order had been passed:- " Heard Sri Bhagwan Das, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State. The present 482 Cr.P.C., application has been filed for quashing the proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No.54/18, under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jahaura, District Lalitpur pending before learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Lalitpur. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the present proceedings is nothing but as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the applicants side against the opposite party no.2. It is further contended that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within a period of four weeks. Steps be taken within a week. Opposite party no.2 may file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks, learned A.G.A. may also file counter affidavit within the same period. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicants, two weeks, thereafter, is granted for filing rejoinder affidavit. List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period before appropriate Court. Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case." 4. It has been submitted, parties had entered into a written settlement dated 12.11.2021, copy of which has been appended to the joint affidavit of applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2. Perusal of that affidavit reveals, parties have made peace. They understand, no real occurrence had taken place and no offence had been committed. At present, parties who are residents of the same village do no wish to continue with the prosecution as all misunderstandings and misgivings that gave rise to the present prosecution over a petty quarrel, have been resolved. At present, there is no surviving dispute and differences between them. 5. The above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants has been confirmed and accepted as correct by learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 6. In Application U/S 482 No. 17467 of 2022 (Dharamveer And 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 02.1.2023, 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 proceeding of Complaint Case No. 54/18 under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jakhaura, District Lalitpur, pending in the court of Sessions Judge/Special Judge, District Lalitpur are quashed so far it relates to the applicants. Order Date :- 28.1.2023 Faraz Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad