Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29067 of 2018 Applicant :- Sethpal And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla 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 charge sheet dated 25.4.2015 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 1438 of 2015 (State Vs. Sethpal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 175 of 2015, under Sections 452, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Devband, District Saharanpur, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., in pursuance of compromise dated 5.7.2018 entered between the parties.
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, in writing, vide compromise dated 5.7.2018, such that opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
Shri Awadhesh Kumar has filed his appearance slip as well as personal affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2 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, 5 and 7 of the said affidavit read as under:
"3. That the deponent is the complainant in the present case. It is further submitted that deponent lodged the first information report against applicants on 28.03.2015 at the Police station Devband, District Saharanpur, under sections 452, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., which has been registered at case crime no. 175 of 2015.
4. That thereafter the investigating officer submitted chargesheet, on which learned Magistrate taken cognizance.
5. That the deponent and the applicants are neighbour and after intervention of some well-wishes and reputed persons both the parties entered into a compromise on 05.07.2018 and filed the same before the court concerned and prayed the court concern to quash the entire proceeding of case on the basis of compromise as they did not want proceed the matter further and the deponent has no objection to quash the proceeding of present case.
7. That it is submitted that as both the parties entered into compromise and same has been submitted before the court concerned and both the parties did not want to proceed matter further, hence this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 1438 of 2015 (State Vs. Sethpal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 175 of 2015, under sections 452, 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police station Devband, District Saharanpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Devband, District Saharanpur as well as chargesheet dated 25.4.2015 submitted by investigating officer in pursuance of compromise dated 05.07.2018 entered between parties."
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submits that the injured witnesses Dataram and Sunita had also filed their affidavits, annexed as Annexure no. 6 to the affidavit in support of the present application, wherein they had also made statements in support of the compromise entered into between the parties.
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