Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19599 of 2018 Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of S.T.No.184 of 2017 (State Vs. Amrendra @ Tripurari and others) under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Lalganj, District Basti.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the death was a suicidal hanging by the deceased and there was no element of homicidal hanging in the same on account of misunderstanding and misgiving between the parties and in the heat of the moment the opposite party no. 2 who is the father of the deceased, had made reckless allegation which resulted in submission of charge sheet and the trial proceeded against the applicant. However, during pendency of such trial some prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is submitted that opposite party and other witnesses do realize that the present case is not one of homicidal hanging but of suicidal hanging. In such circumstances, it is stated that the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 which arises on such misunderstanding, is not a fair and correct narration of the events and that in the interest of justice it has become necessary that P.W. 1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 be recalled so that the parties may be able to see that justice may actually be done.
Sri Raghvendra Prakash, Advocate has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and has also filed personal affidavit. 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. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
Paragraphs nos. 3 to 5 of the said affidavit read as under:
"3. That it is pertinent to mention here that the O.P. no.2 has no objection if the application u/s 482 filed on behalf of the applicant is allowed and the learned trial court is directed to recall the witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3, who are uncle, father and brother of the deceased, who have already been examined before the trial court and they are ready to record their statements for the second time if it requires.
4. That the O.P. no.2 is reputed and respected member of society and he has no objection if the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant is allowed by this Hon'ble Court.
5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated here in above it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the 482 application filed on behalf of the applicant as the O.P. no.2 has no objection for the same, otherwise the parties shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
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.
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. 10,000/- 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.
Subject to such amount being paid, the court below may recall the prosecution witnesses no. P.W.1, P.W. 2 and P.W.3 and on the date and time of its convenience and to allow for such further cross examination as appears to have become necessary in view of the facts noted above.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018/Meenu