Allowed

Sudhir Singh Chhonkar @ Sudhir and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jul 2018A482/19981/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court quashed criminal proceedings arising from a private dispute despite the technical absence of an affidavit from the injured witness. The court found a settlement and impracticability of trial, relying on Supreme Court precedents, and granted the application subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed on the condition that the parties deposit Rs. 4,000/- as costs with the Legal Services Committee within three weeks.

Sudhir Singh Chhonkar @ Sudhir and 6 Others Vs… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19981 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sudhir Singh Chhonkar @ Sudhir And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shashi Kant Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶6

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 11.03.2018 in Criminal Case No. 690/031 of 2018 (State Vs. Govind Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2018, Under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra.

¶7

On 3.7.2018, a below quoted order was passed:

¶8

"Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶10

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 11.03.2018 in Criminal Case No. 690/031 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2018, Under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants states that arising out of certain misunderstanding and misgiving between the parties over running of Disc Jockey at a party, the present FIR had been lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants. Also, a cross FIR had been registered by the applicants against the opposite party no.2.

¶12

However, with the passage of time, the parties have been able to resolve their misunderstanding and differences. Consequently, a written compromise entered into between the parties had been submitted to the police authority.

¶13

At present, a joint affidavit of the applicant no.4 and opposite party no.2 has been filed in support of such contention.

¶14

Sri Shashi Kant Pandey, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2, does not dispute the correctness of the submission so advanced. However, there is no affidavit of injured witness.

¶15

In view of the above, list on 18.07.2018.

¶16

Till the next date of listing, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case."

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present prosecution had been lodged upon certain misunderstandings and misgivings that had arisen between the parties at the relevant time and neither there was any criminal intent nor any offence was ever committed by the applicants. The real disputes (that gave rise to such mistaken criminal proceedings between the parties), were purely civil and private in nature and such that opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.

¶18

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of injured witness Shyam Veer today is taken on record. Paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the said affidavit reads as under:

¶19

"4. That the present affidavit has been filed by the deponent due to the mutual understanding between the parties for not pursuing the case further.

¶20

5. That it is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid case compromise had already taken place between the parties, in this regard a joint affidavit has been filed before the Ld. court below on 28.06.2018.

¶21

6. That the present Affidavit may be treated as a part of the aforesaid Criminal Misc. application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and kept on record for proper adjudication of the case."

¶22

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.

¶23

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 through compromise their private and civil dispute 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.

¶24

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Order Date :- 18.7.2018 Prakhar

Sudhir Singh Chhonkar @ Sudhir and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Singh Chhonkar @ Sudhir and 6 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Hasim Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Chandra Bhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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