Allowed

Shami Ulla and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2023A482/14604/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash cross-criminal proceedings arising from civil disputes. Relying on a prior ruling that settlements in private feuds with settlement of underlying disputes justify quashing to prevent waste of judicial time, the Court quashed the case charges and proceedings, subject to deposit of court costs by the litigants as a deterrent

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet and entire proceedings of both Criminal Cases arising out of the respective Crime cases were set aside and quashed.

Shami Ulla and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14604 of 2008

¶3

Applicant :- Shami Ulla And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nirbhaya Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

With

¶5

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14196 of 2008

¶6

Applicant :- Afroj And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶7

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶8

Application u/S 482 No. 14604 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of Shami Ulla and 3 others with respect to criminal prosecution that has arisen against them upon an F.I.R. dated 23.8.2007 lodged by Matin Ahmad, under Sections 324 and 307 IPC in Case Crime No. 1000 of 2007, Police Station Didauli, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar. However, Application u/S 482 No. 14196 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of Afroj and 5 others against cross case registered by Mohd. Ashim being Case Crime No. 1000A of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 IPC, Police Station Didauli, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar.

¶9

Heard Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants in Application u/S 482 No. 14604 of 2008 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

Both sides, parties to the dispute stated that no real occurrence had taken place; parties are known from before; the criminal prosecution came to be lodged owing to misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. Only upon certain third parties having mislead the parties to the dispute, the cross cases came to be registered. At present, parties claim to have resolved their disputes by means of written agreement dated 7.1.2011. The same has been verified by the learned court below / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha on that date itself. Similar compromise is stated to have entered between the parties on 1.12.2022 with respect to Case Crime No. 1000A of 2007. The same has also been verified on 15.12.2022 before the learned C.J.M., Amroha. That fact has been brought on record by means of supplementary affidavit

¶11

filed in Application u/S 482 No. 14196 of 2008 today. It is taken on record.

¶12

In Application U/S 482 No. 17467 of 2022 (Dharamveer And 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 02.01.2023, it has been observed as under:

¶13

"6. 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 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.

¶14

7. 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 practically in 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.

¶15

8. 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.

¶16

9. 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.

¶17

10. 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.

¶18

11. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus may be allowed, subject

¶19

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."

¶20

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. Both the applications u/S 482 thus stand allowed, subject however to payment of cost Rs. 12,500/- (2,500 on each private party) in Application u/S 482 No. 14604 of 2008 and Rs. 17,500/- (2,500 on each private party) in Application u/S 482 No. 14196 of 2008 to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶21

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.

¶22

Subject to the above, the charge sheet dated 19.2.2008 is hereby set aside in Application u/S 482 No. 14604 of 2008, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 722 of 2008, (State Vs. Shami Ulla and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.1000 of 2007, under Sections 324 and 307 IPC, Police station Didauli, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar, are hereby quashed . Similarly, in Application u/S 482 No. 14196 of 2008, the entire proceeding of Case No. 718 of 2008 (State Vs. Afroj and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1000A of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 IPC, Police Station Didauli, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, J.P. Nagar, are hereby quashed .

¶23

Order Date :- 16.1.2023/SA

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shami Ulla and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shami Ulla and 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

Manzar Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Umashankar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surya Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Raj Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Varun Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Afroj and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another