Court No. - 72
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16536 of 2017
Applicant :- Smt. Usha Singh @ Uzma Begum And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Joshi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Saxena
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet no.01/2017 dated 19.02.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.2014 of 2017 (State Vs.Irshad Ahmad & Others), arising out of Case Crime No.391 of 2016, under Sections-323, 504, 506, 354B, 452, 392, 376, 511 I.P.C., Police Station- Shivkuti, District- Allahabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Allahabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant no.2 and the husband of opposite party no.2 are cousin brothers. They reside in the same house. Then, it has been stated that arising from a petty dispute about parking of vehicles, the controversy was blown out of proportion inasmuch as first the applicant no.1 lodged an FIR against the husband of opposite party no.2 alleging commission of offence under Section 354 IPC. By way of counter blast, the opposite party no.2 lodged completely wrong prosecution against the applicants alleging commission of offence of attempt to rape by the applicant no.2 on her. The applicant no.1 was the wife of applicant no.2 who was falsely implicated of having abetted such an offence. The allegation is stated to be wholly and inherently improbable in view of the relationship between the parties.
4. In any case, it has been submitted that the real dispute between the parties was with respect to the parking of vehicles which can be resolved by a written compromise reached between them. A copy of the same is part of the short counter affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2. In this regard, it is noted that though the opposite party no.2 has described herself as Smt. Aysa Bano in the FIR, however short affidavit is of Smt. Aysa Begum alias Ruchi Bala. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement with the said Smt. Aysa Begum alias Ruchi Bala, is the same person described as Smt. Aysa Bano in the FIR. It thus clearly appear that the present is a completely bogus prosecution.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
6. 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.
7. 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, have declared their 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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. 15,000/- (Rs.5,000 jointly on applicants and Rs.10,000/- on opposite party no.2) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
14. 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 :- 29.5.2019 S.Chaurasia