Quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 406 IPC and SC/ST Act based on a compromise deed and the key prosecution witness's hostile declaration. Court allowed the application to end futile trial.
Quashing of charge sheet No. 7 of 2020 and entire proceedings in the underlying case.
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. - 85
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5472 of 2021
Applicant :- Smt. Ramsakhi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atul Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Learned counsel for the applicants files verification order dated 6.8.2021 passed by court below. The same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Saurabh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel, holding brief of Sri Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of charge sheet No. 7 of 2020 dated 22.2.2020, in Case No. 308 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 5 of 2020, u/s 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3, 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, P.S. Balrai, District Etawah, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of compromise deed dated 22.1.2021 filed by O.P. No.2.
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, which has also been verified by the learned court below on 6.8.2021 . They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.
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, copy of order of court below filed by applicant 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.
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 their differences through compromise 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
Order Date :- 20.9.2021 Vandana
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 406 and others IPC are maintainable in view of a post-FIR compromise settlement between the parties.
Whether the court can quash the criminal proceedings considering the probability of key witness hostility and pendency of other serious cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Singh vs. State of PunjabFollowed¶16
(2014) 6 SCC 466 · Who else cites this
Yogendra Yadav vs. State of JharkhandFollowed¶16
(2014) 9 SCC 653 · Who else cites this
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of GujaratFollowed¶16
(2017) 9 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Ramsakhi And Another
State of U.P.
Gautam Chowdhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
