Court allowed 482 application quashing criminal proceedings for civil dispute settled between real brothers. Verified compromise by lower court. Imposed cost on applicants as warning against court misuse.
Criminal Case No. 3412 of 2021 proceedings quashed; cost Rs. 5000 deposited with Legal Services Committee.
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. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40425 of 2022 Applicant :- Satish Alias Anil Kumar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Dhama Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Instant application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3412 of 2021, State Vs. Satish and others, having Case Crime No. 436 of 2020 under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 of I.P.C. Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat as well as charge sheet dated 5.9.2020 of Case Crime No.436 of 2020 under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504, 506 of I.P.C. Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat and the cognizance order dated 23.3.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat on the basis of compromise entered between the parties. Further prayer is to stay the further proceedings of the aforementioned criminal case, during the pendency of the instant application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have amicably compromised the dispute. The compromise deed has also been appended as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit filed in support of the application.
Whether a compromise has taken place or not can best be ascertained by the court where the proceedings are pending, after ensuring the presence of the parties before it.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the instant application is disposed off with the direction to the court below concerned that if any such compromise deed is filed, the court below shall issue notice to all the signatories of the compromise deed requiring their presence before it to verify the contents of the compromise and if the said compromise is verified, the same shall be made part of the record and report to that effect, will be prepared within one month and the parties would be allowed to obtain certified copy thereof. Thereafter, the parties may approach this Court for quashing of the aforementioned criminal proceedings.
For the period of one month, further proceedings of the aforesaid Criminal Case No.3412 of 2021, State Vs. Satish and others shall remain stayed.
Office is directed to return back the certified/original compromise deed to the applicants within one week."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
11. 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 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."
Order Date :- 1.2.2023/SA
Digitally signed by :- SALMAN ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed on account of settlement and verification of compromise deed despite initial lack of conclusive proof of coincidence in occurrence.
Whether imposition of costs towards Legal Services Committee is appropriate warning against misuse of courts in cases settled by compromise.
Whether real dispute was civil and private in nature preventing criminal prosecution in present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dharamveer And 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and AnotherReferred¶15
Application U/S 482 No. 17467 of 2022 (Dharamveer And 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another)
Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.Referred¶21
Narinder Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
Yogendra Yadav vs. State of JharkhandReferred¶21
Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of GujaratReferred¶21
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat
Satish Alias Anil Kumar And 2 Others
Saumitra Dayal Singh
Salman Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
