Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12976 of 2017
Applicant :- Trilok Singh Rajput And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Bhushan Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to correct the spelling of name of applicant no. 3 during course of the day.
2. Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri B.B. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and leaned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
4. Present 482 application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 16.2.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.1972 of 2014 (Arvind Kumar Dahare Vs. Trilok Singh Rajput and others) under Sections 420, 342, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) (x) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.
Ajitmal, District Auraiya pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Auraiya.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-
(i) The present dispute is purely private and civil dispute between the parties with respect to sale of certain property. The present criminal offence is claimed to have arisen on account of misunderstandings and misgivings of the parties in view of the civil disputes. However, during pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have been able to resolve their differences and reduce the same in writing contained in Annexure- S.A. 2 to the present supplementary affidavit. All the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 are the signatories to that compromise. Upon earlier orders passed in the present application, the said compromise had been sent to the court below for verification. By means of the order dated 11.5.2017 passed by the learned C.J.M.Auraiya, the aforesaid compromise appears to have been verified. Certified copy of that order has also been annexed with the supplementary affidavit by way of annexure S.A.-3.
(ii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicant/s nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(iii) there are no injuries;
(iv) in view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship;
(v) the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship;
(vi) in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 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 above described compromise had been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
7. 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.
8. 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 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, 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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. 18,000/- (3,000 on each party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
15. 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 :- 31.5.2019 Meenu