Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10949 of 2018 Applicant :- Ramesh Chand And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Surendra Kumar
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 9659 of 2017 (State vs. Ramesh Chand and 3 others), arising out of N.C.R. No. 70 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Magorrha, District Mathura, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Mathura.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-
(i) the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature;
(ii) the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurance as alleged;
(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iv) there are no injuries;
(v) at present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other have resolved their differences and made peace;
(vi) in view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship;
(vii) the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship;
(viii) in such changed circumstances, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 do not wish to press charges against the applicants.
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 opposite party nos.2 and 3 has filed personal affidavit of the opposite party no.3 wherein the aforesaid facts stated by the applicants have been confirmed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 3 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, the counter affidavit filed today discloses that the compromise the above described compromise had been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 3 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
7. Paragraph nos. 2 to 5 and 7 of the said short counter affidavit read as under:
"2. That among the applicants and O.P. No.3, some verbal fight had taken place on 26.6.2017 about the sharing of farming and in this regard, Opposite Party No.2 registered a Non-cognizable Report being No. 70/2017 at Police Station Magorrha District Mathura.
3. That the investigation officer carried out the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the applicants under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. on dated 06.08.2017.
4. That it is relevant to mention here that the deponent on her freewill entered into compromise and now the dispute arose between them settled outside the Court in presence of near relatives and respectable members of Society and a compromise agreement to this effect signed by both the parties on dated 15.02.2018.
5. That the above mentioned compromise agreement dated 15.02.2018 filed before the court concerned on dated 22.02.2018.
7. That now there is no dispute left between both the parties and the O.P. No.3 does not want to take any action against the applicants and in such a situation want to end the case pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Mathura."
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 incidently and not as a natural consequence of the real occurence. 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 differenciation 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 applicants. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus stands allowed, subject however to payment of cost Rs. 6,000/- (1,000 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 :- 5.9.2018/Mini