Allowed

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

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2023A482/47700/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings involving allegations of cheating and forgery. Finding the dispute was purely civil, settled, and the key prosecution witness likely hostile, the court quashed the proceedings while imposing a cost of Rs. 7,500/- as a warning against frivolous litigation.

What did the court decide?

The charge sheet, cognizance order, and entire criminal proceedings under Sections 419 and 420 I.P.C. were quashed, subject to payment of Rs. 7,500/- as costs to the Legal Services Committee.

Vijay Singh 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. - 47700 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶6

Present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed seeking quashing of the charge sheet no.1 of 2018, cognizance order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the A.C.J.M., Kannauj as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 395 of 2019 (State Vs. Vijay & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2018, under Sections - 419 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Indergarh, District - Kannauj.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants, the only dispute between the parties was purely civil, arising from certain differences in the partnership that the parties had formed. However, with passage of time those disputes have been resolved.

¶8

In the changed circumstance, opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the prosecution any further. Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, Advocate, has filed appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2. He confirms the fact assertion made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

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:

¶10

"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.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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."

¶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

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Subject to the above, charge sheet no.1 of 2018, cognizance order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the A.C.J.M., Kannauj as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 395 of 2019 (State Vs. Vijay & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2018, under Sections - 419 and 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Indergarh, District - Kannauj is quashed.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.1.2023 Abhilash

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ABHILASH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh 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

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

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

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