Allowed

Pushpendra Kumar Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2018A482/12694/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 323, 504 IPC in a 482 Cr.P.C. application. A family dispute was settled amicably, and the key prosecution witness declared intent to turn hostile. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that continuing trials would waste time and serve no purpose, ordering quashing subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the charge sheet dated 20.08.2011 and entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2828 of 2011; ordered payment of Rs. 4,000 cost to the Legal Services Committee.

Pushpendra Kumar Singh and another Vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12694 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Pushpendra Kumar Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- J.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 20.08.2011 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2828 of 2011 (State Vs. Pushpendra Kumar Singh and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2011, under Sections- 323, 504 I.P.C., Police StationShivkuti, District-Allahabad, pending in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Allahabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR had come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably in writing dated 01.08.2017. They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.

¶8

Sri Manoj Singh, 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 present counter affidavit 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.

¶9

In this regard paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 reads as under:

¶10

"4. That it is respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the deponent/opposite party no.2 is the cousin of the applicants and due to some family dispute this incident has been happened between both the parties and during the pendency of the present case, applicants and the opposite party no.2 had amicably settled their dispute and now they do not want to continue the present case.

¶11

5. That the deponent/opposite party no.2 on oath says that since all the dispute between the applicants and opposite party no.2 have been settled in the family and the deponent who is the informant/opposite party no.2 in the present case, having any grouse against the applicants, hence continuation of the further proceeding in the aforesaid case will be an exercise in futility.

¶12

6. That now the deponent/opposite party no.2 is not willing to pursue the aforesaid case any further against the applicants and making this statement on oath by her own sweet and free will & choice."

¶13

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 applicant and opposite party no.2 have settled their civil and private disputes through a compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicant. 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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 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.

¶21

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

¶22

be deposited before the Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.7.2018 Lbm/-

Pushpendra Kumar Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra Kumar Singh and another v. State of U.P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anshudhar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gaurav Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maqsood Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nishakant @ Ratnesh (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.