Allowed

Ankit Chahal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2023A482/26573/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arising from civil disputes regarding land and money. The court noted the dispute was resolved amicably, making the trial a waste of time. It followed specific case law, accepted the compromise, and ordered quashing subject to a penalty deposit.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC quashed; deposit of Rs. 7,500 with High Court Legal Services Committee.

Ankit Chahal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26573 of 2015

¶3

Applicant :- Ankit Chahal And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- P.C. Srivastava,Amarjeet Choudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Present application has been filed to quash the proceedings of Case No. 1534 of 2015, (State Versus Smt. Savitri Devi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 244 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Line, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.

¶7

At the outset, it has been stated that the real dispute between the parties was a civil dispute with respect to sale of land and money transaction arising from a sale deed set up by the applicants. A Civil Suit had also been filed being O.S. No. 371 of 2012 before the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Moradabad.

¶8

With passage of time, parties step to resolve their civil dispute and differences such that the sale deed set up by the applicant has been cancelled and the immovable property restored to the opposite party no. 2. Thus, all misunderstanding and misgiving between the parties have been resolved. It is stated that the criminal prosecution came to be lodged owing to misgiving and misunderstanding and not on account of personal grudge.

¶9

The statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant has been supported by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. Also, reliance has been placed on the supplementary affidavit dated 16.8.2022 which contains the terms of compromise reached between the parties.

¶10

In Application U/S 482 No. 17467 of 2022 (Dharamveer And 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 02.1.2023, it has been observed as under:

¶11

"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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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."

¶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 applicants. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus stands allowed , subject however to payment of cost Rs. 7,500/- (2,500 on each private party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.

¶18

The Legal Services Committee exists and works for the benefit of those litigants for whom court procedures are difficult

¶19

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.

¶20

Subject to the above, the proceedings of Case No. 1534 of 2015, (State Versus Smt. Savitri Devi and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 244 of 2014, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Civil Line, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, are hereby quashed.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 SA

¶22

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

Ankit Chahal and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit Chahal and Another 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

Smt. Anshika Tyagi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Madhuri Bharti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kallu Singh @ Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arjun Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Kasim Vs State of U.P. and Another