Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 30868 of 2018 Applicant :- Koshendra Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Niraj Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rohit Tiwari,Sheelu Jaiswal
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to implead Rahul Singh as opposite party no.5 in the array of the parties during the course of the day.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rohit Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 22.05.2016 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 198 of 2017 (State Vs. Vishal), arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 2016, under Sections- 147, 148, 323, 325, 506, 352, 308, 120B I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Mehnajpur, District- Azamgarh, pending in the court of Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, Azamgarh.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-
(i) the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature having arisen over certain election dispute, wherein the applicant no.1 had contested an election against the wife of the opposite party no.2;
(ii) the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstandings and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence, as alleged;
(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) injuries claimed are wholly exaggerated and manipulated, inasmuch as the alleged incident took place at district Azamgarh and the injuries were submitted at district Varanasi. There may be some minor injuries as may have been unintentionally caused in the commotion that occurred at the relevant time. In any case the injury report does not represent the true facts;
(v) at present, the parties to the dispute have become related on account of marriage having taken place and at present the parties have resolved their differences and have made peace;
(vi) in view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship;
(vii) the continuance of the criminal trial may infact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship;
(viii) in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2, who is the informant, the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 who are named as witness as also the injured Rahul Singh do not wish to press charges against the applicants. While the present application is supported by the joint affidavit of the applicants (accused persons) and the opposite party no.2 (first informant). Affidavits of opposite party nos. 4 and 5 who are the witness and Rahul Singh who is injured have been filed today. The same is taken on record;
5. 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.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed joint affidavit and personal affidavit of the injured Rahul Singh, wherein the aforesaid facts stated by the applicants have been confirmed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party nos. 2 to 5 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by them. In fact, the supplementary affidavits filed by the opposite party no.4 and 5 today discloses that the compromise has been entered into between the parties.
8. Paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the said joint affidavit reads as under:
"3. That the parties are neighbourers to each other and also are relative since they are not interested for further litigation therefore they came to conclusion to end the dispute between them therefore they are filing compromise affidavit/joint affidavit before this Hon'ble Court.
4. That the parties of the present criminal application as well as complainant opposite party no.2 including the injured are not interested to press the litigation against the applicants therefore the proceedings of criminal case no. 198 of 2017 (State Vs. Vishal) arising out of case crime no. 14 of 2016 under Section 147, 148, 323, 325, 506, 352, 308, 120B I.P.C. & under section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act at P.S. Mehnajpur District Azamgarh pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate Court No.13, Azamgarh may be quashed or may be pleased to pass appropriate order by which the criminal proceeding between the parties may be finalized in accordance with law.
5. that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept the joint affidavit of the parties in Criminal Misc. Application No. 30868 of 2018 Koshendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others and be pleased to decide the present Criminal Misc. Application on the basis of this compromise affidavit or may pass appropriate order treating the part and parcel of the application otherwise the parties shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
9. Paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the said (supplementary) personal affidavit of the injured witness/opposite party no.5 reads as under:
"3. That it is relevant to mention here that the dispute between the parties only due to earlier Panchayat election in which both contested the election against the post of Pradhan further the deponent is the nephew of injured Shyam Bahadur Singh.
4. That the parties are neighbourers to each other and also are relative since they are not interested for further litigation therefore they came to conclusion to end the dispute between them therefore they are filing compromise affidavit/joint affidavit before this Hon'ble Court.
5. That it is further relevant to mention here that the parties including the injured witnesses as well as deponent are not interested to press the litigation against the applicants therefore the charge-sheet and its entire proceedings of Criminal case no. 198 of 2017 (State Vs. Vishal) arising out of case crime no. 14 of 2016 under Section 147, 148, 323, 325, 506, 352, 308, 120B I.P.C. & under section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act at P.S. Mehnajpur District Azamgarh pending in the court of Additional Judicial Magistrate Court No.13, Azamgarh may be quashed or may be pleased to pass appropriate order by which the criminal proceeding between the parties may be finalized in accordance with law."
10. 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.
11. 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, 4 and 5, who would be the key prosecution witness, if the trial were to proceed, have declared their 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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. 8,000/- (2,000/- on each party namely applicant no.1 and opposite party nos. 2, 4 and 5) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
18. 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 :- 17.9.2018 Lbm/-