Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29073 of 2018 Applicant :- Om Prakash And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 2922 of 2012 (State Versus Om Prakash and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 68 of 1989, under Section 326 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, pending in the court of learned C.J.M., Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present prosecution had been lodged upon certain misunderstandings and misgivings that had arisen between the parties at the relevant time and neither there was any criminal intent nor any offence was ever committed by the applicants. The parties have entered into a compromise and have settled such disputes amicably and in the changed circumstances, opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
Shri Jitendra Kumar has filed his appearance slip as well as personal affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 (who is the informant) today, which is taken on record. 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. Paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the said affidavit read as under:
"3. That the deponent has lodged a first information report against the applicants arising out of case crime No. 68 of 1999, till today the trial was going-on.
4. That the deponent made compromise with the applicants and who has wants to quash the proceeding on the basis of compromise.
5. That it is also submitted here since long years case has been pending and both the parties settled their disputes, so there is no dispute between the parties, in this facts and circumstances there is no need for survival of the case."
It is then submitted that the injured witness (who was the father of the opposite party no. 2), died during trial and that at present no useful purpose would be serve in keeping in the present application pending, at this stage, inasmuch it is an old trial arising from the FIR lodged in the year 1989. It is further submitted that other than the deceased (who was the father of the opposite party no. 2), there is no other injured witness.
Learned counsel for the applicant 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 through compromise their private and civil dispute 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 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 behavior 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 applicants. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus stands allowed, subject however to payment of cost Rs. 4,000/- (2,000 on each party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
The High Court 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 High Court 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 :- 23.8.2018 Prakhar