Allowed

Rajesh and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2018A482/19206/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed further proceedings in a criminal trial arising from Section 307 and other IPC charges under Section 482 CrPC. The applicant secured a compromise and the key witness intended to turn hostile. The Court applied Supreme Court precedents allowing quashing for settlement and efficient judicial administration.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings in Session Trial No. 354 of 2004 are quashed. The application is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 8,000 cost to the Legal Services Committee within three weeks.

Rajesh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19206 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh And 3 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the further proceeding of Session Trial No. 354 of 2004, arising out of Case Crime No. 120 of 2000, under Section 307, 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sewrahi, District Kushinagar, pending in the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the dispute between the parties has been settled through compromise, which has been executed by all the parties including the injured witness. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the affidavit filed in support of this application.

¶8

By order dated 31.05.2018, this Court passed the below quoted order:

¶9

"Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1.

¶10

Issue notice to respondent no. 2 returnable at an early date.

¶11

On the matter being taken up today, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the applicant that parties in the dispute have entered into compromise and same has been filed before the Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC No. 1, Kushinagar, copy of which has been annexed as annexure no. 5 to this application.

¶12

In view of the above, list this matter on 19.7.2018, as supplementary fresh before the appropriate Bench and Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC No. 1, Kushinagar is directed to verify the aforesaid compromise under intimation to this Court by the next date fixed.

¶13

Office is directed to communicate this order through FAX to the Additional District & Sessions Judge/FTC No. 1, Kushinagar within one week."

¶14

In compliance of the aforesaid order, a report has been submitted by the Additional District Judge/FTC No. 1, Kushinagar at Padrauna dated 09.07.2018, by which it has been

¶15

reported that the compromise that is claimed to have been entered into between the parties has been duly verified.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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. 8,000/- (Rs. 2,000/- on each applicant) to be deposited before the Legal Services Committee, High Court Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 19.7.2018 Lbm/-

Rajesh and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh and 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daya Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and another

Kishan @ Ramadhar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sahnawaj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahboob Ali and Mahmood Ali @ Bhoora Vs State of U.P. and Anotehr