Allowed

Qamre Alam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2021A482/14423/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash criminal proceedings arising from a private, civil dispute. The court accepted a settlement between parties, noted the prosecution witness's intent to turn hostile, and held that continuing the trial would waste judicial time. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court allowed the application and quashed the proceed

What did the court decide?

Quashed the entire criminal proceedings and allowed the application subject to payment of Rs. 4,000 cost to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad.

Qamre Alam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14423 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Qamre Alam And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Punita Pandey,Shweta Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepankar Chaudhary

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to correct the prayer clause, during the course of the day.

¶6

Affidavit of Shri Rahees Alam (opposite party no.2) has been filed today. Taken on record.

¶7

Heard Ms. Shweta Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr Abdul Majid, Advocate, holding brief of Mr Deepakar Chaudhary, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and; learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 17.04.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of CNR No. UPJB040045062018 (Criminal Case No. 5477 of 2018), arising out of Case Crime No. 22 of 2011, State Vs. Rukne Alam and others, under Sections- 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Didoli, District- Amroha, pending in the court of CJM, Amroha.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-

¶10

(i) the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature;

¶11

(ii) the FIR came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged;

¶12

(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;

¶13

(iv) at present, the parties to the dispute have resolved their differences and made peace;

¶14

(v) in view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship;

¶15

(vi) the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the

¶16

otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship;

¶17

(vii) in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.

¶18

In the above regard, a written compromise has been entered into between the parties. A copy of the same has been annexed with the affidavit in support of the present application.

¶19

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed affidavit of opposite party no.2 wherein the aforesaid facts stated by the applicants have been confirmed.

¶20

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 short counter affidavit filed today discloses that the compromise the above described compromise had 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.

¶21

Paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the said affidavit filed today, read as below:

¶22

"2. That the contents of the affidavit filed by the applicant in support of the aforesaid crim. misc. application and its annexure have been read over and explained before me in Hindi which I understood the same and is hereby giving reply as under.

¶23

3. That deponent/Opposite party no. 2 does not want to contest the proceeding of CNR No. UPJB040045062018 (criminal case no- 5477 of 2018) arising out of case crime no. 22 of 2018 State V/S Rukne Alam and others under section 323, 504, 506, I.P.C from P.SDidoli District Amroha Pending before C.J.M, Amroha, as under some confusion and under the pressure of inhabitants of the locality I/deponent filed the instant case against the applicants therefore we have entered the compromise outside the court. The certified copy of compromise deed and order dated 29.10.2021 is being filed herewith S.C.A. and marked as S.C.A.-I."

¶24

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 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 .

¶25

From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidentally and not as a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is further apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. The opposite party no. 2, who would be a key prosecution witness, if the trial were

¶26

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.

¶27

The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present where, though the allegations made in the FIR do appear to contain the ingredients of a criminal offence, however, in view of 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.

¶28

In normal circumstances, the court would be loathe to accept some of such compromise arrangements. However, that course does not commend 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 lesson to one's adversary often appears to be the only purpose of instituting a criminal proceeding.

¶29

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.

¶30

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 & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.

¶31

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,

¶32

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.

¶33

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

¶34

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.

¶35

Order Date :- 29.11.2021 Prakhar

Qamre Alam and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Qamre Alam and 2 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

Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mohan Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharjeel Imam Vs State of U.P.

Moti Lal Pal Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Shivani Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mumtaj Khan Vs State of U.P..and Another