Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28969 of 2018
Applicant :- Bhim Singh@Nagendra Singh And 3others
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Sengar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 01.3.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Crl. Case No.0014 of 2016 (State Vs. Bhim Singh and others), under Sections-354-A, 323, 504 IPC & 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station- Narwal, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 14th Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR had come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably in writing. They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence had been committed by the applicants.
Sri Manju Savita, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposites party no.2 and also filed her personal affidavit which is a joint affidavit with applicant no.1. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. In fact, joint compromise affidavit filed today discloses that the compromise has been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
Paragraphs nos. 4 to 8 of the said affidavit read as under:
"4. That the opposite party no.2 is the sole wife as well as dependent of his husband i.e. Sarvendra Singh who is expired by cancer on 08.08.2017. He had lodged present the FIR. The Gram Panchayat, Pali District Kanpur Nagar also issued death certificate to the applicant.
5. That, now the passes of time and due to intervening and interference of the senior citizens of the same family, the applicants have relied their mistake, if any and paid all of the expansions/damages and also tendered their apology on 14.8.2018 before the opposite party no.02 who has now decided not continue the impugned proceedings against the applicants, thus the compromise has been taken place on 14.8.2018, consequently they came at Allahabad High Court on 14.8.2018 and furnished their respective affidavits.
6. That, it has been decided that the applicants will restore the losses of the opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 will not prosecute the crime against the applicants at all.
7. That, the applicants and the opposite party no.2 are belonging to the common family and they are residing at neighborhood in the same village to each other whereas they always helped to the each other who now does not want to prosecute the applicants, So their version may be treated as a compromise before this Hon'ble Court and now the opposite party no.2 also has no grievances from the applicants. The grievances if any are no more due to compromise between the applicants and the opposite party no.2
8. That, the applicants have also ensured to the opposite party no. 2 that in future also, they will not harassed to her and her family"
Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their differences through compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and appear to have settled their real disputes amicably. Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no. 2, who would be the 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.
The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present where, though allegations made in the FIR do contain ingredients of an offence. However, in view such 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 in practically 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.
In normal circumstances, the court would be loathe to accept some of such compromise arrangements. Sadly, even that course does not commend itself 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 a lesson to ones adversary often appears to be the only purpose of instituting a criminal proceeding.
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.
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 vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.
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 Legal Services Committee, High Court 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 by 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 the same queue. The courts have no mechanism to pre-identify and distinguish between the genuine and the bogus litigant. That becomes known only after hearing is concluded in a 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 would require more time to be devoted to them than a case of two genuine litigants.
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 applicant. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus stands allowed, subject however to payment of cost Rs. 4,000/- by the applicants and Rs.2,000/- by opposite party no.2 to be deposited before the Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
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.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Meenu