Allowed

Nurul Hasan and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2023A482/7104/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants arising from a settled neighbourhood dispute. Citing a civil nature of the dispute and a verified settlement, the order allowed the application and quashed trial proceedings subject to payment of Rs. 20,000 cost to the Legal Services Committee as a warning against misuse of courts.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings quashed insofar as it relates to present applicants. Order allowed subject to payment of cost Rs. 20,000 to the Legal Services Committee within three weeks.

Nurul Hasan and 6 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. - 7104 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Nurul Hasan And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sami Ullah Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akash Chandra Maurya

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sami Ullah Khan learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Akash Chandra Maurya learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶6

Present application has been filed to quash the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 554 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 147 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I) Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶7

At the outset it has been stated, that the parties are neighbours. Petty civil dispute existed between them from before. Arising therefrom exaggerated allegations have been made in the First Information Report owing to misunderstandings and misgivings between the parties. In fact no real occurrence had taken place and no injuries had been suffered. The injury suffered was not on account of real occurrence or intent of the parties but accidental in nature. In any case, parties have been able to resolve their differences through written agreement dated 15.2.2021 as has been verified by the learned court below/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Sant Kabir Nagar vide order dated 15.2.2021.

¶8

Such fact statement made by learned counsel for the applicants has been accepted as correct by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶9

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:

¶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 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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 however to payment of cost Rs. 20,000/- (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 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.

¶19

Subject to the above, the proceedings of Special Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 554 of 2011 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 147 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I) Sant Kabir Nagar is quashed insofar it relates to present applicants.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.1.2023/Faraz

¶21

Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nurul Hasan and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nurul Hasan and 6 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

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nikhil Gupta and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajit Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Yashu Chauhan and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Ameen Yasar Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another