Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21953 of 2018 Applicant :- Vikas Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the prayer clause during course of the day in view of the fact that during pendency of the present proceedings, the criminal trial has been transferred from Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 10, Meerut to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 29.11.2017 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.38161 of 2017 (State Vs. Vikas Singh) arising out of Crime No.811 of 2017 under Sections 66 E/67/67A Information & Technology Act, read with Sections 292/504/507 IPC, P.S. Kanker Kheda, District Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant and opposite party no.2 are both students of B.Tech. and that arising out of some misunderstanding and misgivings, present prosecution had been launched against the applicant. With passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably in writing. They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.
Sri Vinay Kumar Pathak Advocate 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, counter affidavit filed today discloses that the compromise has 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.
Paragraphs nos. 10, 12 and 13 of the said affidavit read as under:
".10. That the contents of paragraph No.13 and 14 of the affidavit are accepted. It is further submitted that the compromise dated 9.5.2018 is prepared in the presence of deponent/opposite party no.2 as well as in presence of her parents and is duly signed by the deponent, parents and her counsel. The deponent/oppositre party no.2 does not want to proceed further of charge sheet no. 551 of 2017 dated 29.11.2017 as well as entire proceeding of Case No.38161 of 2017(State Vs. Vikas Singh) arising out of Crime No.811 of 2017 under Sections 66 E/67/67A Information & Technology Act, read with Sections 292/504/507 IPC, P.S. Kanker Kheda, District Meerut, therefore entered in the said compromise on 09.05.2018.
12. That the contents of paragraph no.16 to 21 of the affidavit are relating to the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court therefore need no comments. It is further submitted that on the basis of compromise dated 09.05.2018 the charge sheet no.551 of 2017 dated 29.11.2017 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 38161 of 2017(State Vs. Vikas Singh) arising out of Crime No.811 of 2017 under Sections 66 E/67/67A Information & Technology Act, read with Sections 292/504/507 IPC, P.S. Kanker Kheda, District Meerut pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut entire proceeding of liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court That in the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is expedient in the interest of justice that on the basis of compromise dated 29.11.2017 as well as entire proceeding of Case No. 38161 of 2017(State Vs. Vikas Singh) arising out of Crime No.811 of 2017 under Sections 66 E/67/67A Information & Technology Act, read with Sections 292/504/507 IPC, P.S. Kanker Kheda, District Meerut pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut entire proceeding of liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court otherwise the deponent shall suffer irreparable loss and injury ."
Learned counsel for the applicants 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 their differences through compromise 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 Legal Services Committee, High Court 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 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 applicant. 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 Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
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 :- 24.8.2018 Meenu