Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3010 of 2017
Applicant :- Deepu Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Dileep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Singh,Anurag Shukla,Gaurav Singh
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the orders dated 17.12.2016, 11.09.2013 and 16.01.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1519 of 2013 (State Vs. Deepu Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 57 of 2010, under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-
(i) the dispute between the parties was purely purely because of political leaning.
(ii) the FIR came to be lodged by opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. Though, there was neither any real occurrence nor commission of offence alleged. Further, it is stated that though the police had initially filed a final report which had also been accepted but the same was reopened upon a revision filed by opposite party no.2 which became subject matter of challenge before this Court. When the matter was remanded, it is upon such remand that cognizance was taken and summoning order came to be passed;
(iii) at present, the parties to the dispute have resolved their differences and made peace;
(iv) in view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship;
(v) the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship and;
(vi) in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicant.
4. In the above regard, a written compromise has been entered into between the parties. A copy of the same has been annexed with the affidavit in support of the present application.
5. Learned counsel for the parties has filed a joint affidavit of the applicant and the opposite party no.2 wherein the aforesaid facts stated by the applicant have been confirmed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. In fact, the joint affidavit discloses that the compromise had 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.
7. Paragraph nos.2 and 3 of the said joint affidavit read as under:
"2. That by means of this Joint Affidavit, the depondent No.1 who is the applicant of he present case and the deponent No.2 who is the opposite party No.2 (the complainant) being well versed with the facts of the case are deposing the factum that both of them have settled their dispute out side the Court which was as a result of misunderstanding between the parties and by means of this joint affidavit, they wish to bring on record the aforesaid compromise dated 1.8.2018, between themselves before this Hon'ble Court, with a prayer that the present prosecution launched at the behest of opposite party No.2 Ram Kumar alias Raman Porwal, as against the applicant may be quashed by this Hon'ble Court, using its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in light of the Judgment & Order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gyan Singh Vs. State of Punjab – 2012 Vol 10 SCC Page 303, failing which the parties shall suffer grave harassment and irreparable injury.
3. That the applicant as well as opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute amicably without any threat, coercion or any pressure from each other or from any other external factor ad both of them most humbly submit that the present prosecution has been launched by the opposite party no.2 as a result of misunderstanding and on the behest of some political rivals in the heat of political atmosphere of the State Election. The aforesaid opposite party no.2 most respectfully submits that he is not interested to pursue the matter further and prays for that the present application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant may be allowed, quashing the charge-sheet as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 1519 of 2013 – State Vs. Deepu Singh, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya, under Section 364 IPC (arising out of Case Crime No.57 of 2010), Police Station- Kotwali Auraiya, District- Auraiya), as against him for which he shall have no dispute futher with the applicant and undertakes to not revive the same further in future, as the parties in the healthy and amicable atmosphere, have settled their differences which was as a result of misunderstanding, vide compromise dated 01.08.2018. For the ready reference and kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court, a true Photostat copy of the compromise, between the parties, dated 01.08.2018, is being filed herewith, as Annexure No.I to this Joint affidavit."
8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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. 10,000/- (5,000 on each party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
16. 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 :- 28.5.2019 AHA