Allowed

Amit Kumar Sahu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2021A482/5833/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash criminal proceedings following a compromise, the Court accepted the settlement due to the principal witness intending to turn hostile and to alleviate court pendency, resulting in the quashing of the case.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings of the case arising out of Crime No.237 of 2007 are hereby quashed.

Amit Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5833 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Sahu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Bihari Yadav,Suneel Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

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

¶6

From perusal of the record it appears that the application was filed with the prayer to expedite the matter but from perusal of the order dated 29.7.2021, it transpires that the order of verification was passed by co-ordinate Bench of this court and in pursuance of the order dated 29.7.2021, the applicant filed compromise before the court concerned and the court concerned vide its order dated 16.8.2021 has verified the compromise. Further the application was filed only to expedite the matter so this prayer cannot be granted.

¶7

Today supplementary affidavit has been filed in the court today but no such averment in the affidavit that he want to withdraw the initial prayer has been made but at this juncture he is making oral prayer that the previous prayer may be withdrawn and further prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No.7916 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No.237 of 2007, under Sections- 323, 504, 326 I.P.C., Police StationKotwali, District- Prayagraj.

¶8

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 16.08.2021 . They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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 .

¶18

Order Date :- 12.11.2021 shiv

Amit Kumar Sahu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Sahu 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

Vijai Pratap Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Diwakar @ Bantu Mishra and 3 Others Vs State of U P and Another

Anoop and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar (Minor) Vs State of Up and Another

Pravin Chauhan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir Husain and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another