Holding that a genuine compromise between parties regarding a no-injury dispute involving political enmity warrants quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicable laws and precedents were considered.
Charge sheet dated 26.4.2016 and all consequential proceedings are quashed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2674 of 2019
Applicant :- Ramesh Singh And Anr Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Muktesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri Ram Kripal Yadav on behalf of O.P. No. 2 is taken on record.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Ramesh Singh and Ajit Singh with a prayer for quashing charge-sheet dated 26.4.2016 under sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act in Case Crime No. 15 of 2016, P.S. Kutahan, District Jaunpur, and the cognizance order dated 28.6.2018 taken by the Magistrate and the trial pending before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ II Additional Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, on the ground that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case crime number. They are innocent and the parties have entered into a compromise. The informant-victim Baljor @ Baljor Gautam, son of Muttur @ Muttur Gautam does not want to proceed with the case. By the amicable settlement outside the court have ended the dispute amongst the parties. This was a no injury case and charge sheet against two persons, which may never constitute a riot by unlawful assembly in furtherance of its common object punishable under section 147 Cr.P.C.. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that the affidavit filed in support of this application is a joint affidavit of the informant Baljor @ Baljor Gautam and Ajit Kumar Singh @ Ajit Singh, one of the applicants. The law propounded by Hon'ble 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 has been pressed.
Sri Ram Kripal Yadav, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, argued that the parties have entered into a compromise and for their peaceful living this prosecution is not needed and request by the informant has been made for quashing this proceeding. This is under bonafide understanding of both sides for their peaceful living.
Learned AGA argued that the above law cited by the applicants are the settled position of law and in view of the above cited law the State is having no objection in entering into a
compromise and for quashing the proceedings.
The report lodged at police station reveals that it was lodged by informant Baljor @ Baljor Gautam against Ramesh Singh, Ajit Singh and 62 others on 12.1.2016 at 14.15 hours for an occurrence being said to have occurred on 10.1.2016 at 13.00 hours. The informant is an educated person and is a member of Gram Panchayat but he did not lodged report of incident instantly rather he took two days for lodging the report. The accusation was that those named accused persons Ramesh Singh and Ajit Singh along with 62 other met him in the way to Pilkichha Bazar and asked his B.D.C. certificate. The same along with his Identity proof was taken by them and when asked for back, they abused by taking the name of his caste and extended threat. Thereafter they all went from the spot. It was not a public view and not a pre-meditated offence but happened suddenly with no injury rather when B.D.C. certificate and Identity proof was asked back by the informant this happened. Moreso, the informant himself has moved this affidavit before this court for quashing the above criminal proceeding.
In view of the law cited above and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA and from perusal of record it appears that the real dispute was regarding some political enmity and it was not the natural consequence of real occurrence. The parties have entered into a compromise and they further appeared to have settled the aforesaid dispute amicably for their peaceful living in the Society.
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 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.
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 and the above mentioned charge sheet and all consequential proceedings thereon are hereby quashed, subject however to payment of cost Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 2,500/- each by applicant nos. 1 and 2 and Rs. 5000/- by opposite party no. 2) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, 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 :- 24.1.2019 Pcl
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim of compromise between parties warrants quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the allegations constitute a cognizable offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the quashing order requires payment of costs to the Legal Services Committee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh vs. State of PunjabApplied¶6
Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Yogendra Yadav vs. State of JharkhandApplied¶6
Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of GujaratApplied¶6
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Ramesh Singh
Ajit Singh
State of U.P.
Baljor Gautam
Ram Krishna Gautam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
