Allowed

Hasnain v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2023A482/3403/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 354 IPC initiated from a civil dispute. Finding the dispute civil and private in nature with a settled compromise, the court relied on Apex Court precedents to drop the prosecution for efficient trial of serious cases, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of entire criminal case proceedings, Charge Sheet, and Summons Order; payment of Rs. 5,000 cost to HCLSC within 6 weeks.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3403 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Hasnain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gajendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Short counter affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri K.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no. 1. Perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of the Case No. 1106 of 2022 (State Vs. Hasnain), U/s 354 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 565 of 2020, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Bitharichainpur, District Bareilly, pending before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Bareilly as well as charge sheet dated 28.11.2020 and summoning order dated 29.04.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-

¶9

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

¶10

(ii) the F.I.R. came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstandings and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence, as alleged;

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(vi) the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal

¶15

relationship; and,

¶16

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

¶17

It is stated that compromise deed had been filed by the parties before the learned court below. It is further stated that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the Court below and the learned court below has verified the aforesaid compromise vide order dated 21.02.2023. The copy of the order of verification has been sent by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Bareilly to this Court, which has been placed on the record by the office.

¶18

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 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.

¶19

Sri K.K.Shukla, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the correctness of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

¶20

From a perusal of the record, it appears, the real dispute between the parties were civil and private in nature and criminal prosecution arose incidently 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

In normal circumstances, the court would be loathe to accept some of such compromise arrangements. However, that course does not

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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, Allahabad, within a period of six 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.

¶27

In such circumstances, though no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any further, however, no

¶28

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.5,000/-, to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of six weeks from today.

¶29

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.

¶30

Order Date :- 12.4.2023 Lbm/-

¶31

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hasnain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasnain 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

Omprakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gore Lal Kushwaha @ Harish Chandra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhileshwar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others