Allowed

Deep Shikha and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023A482/9356/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings (Sections 323, 307, 386, 504, 506 IPC) arising from a matrimonial dispute. Quashing was granted based on a settlement between parties and reliance on legal principles regarding the quashing of criminal trials in cases involving private disputes, potentially leading to hostile witnesses and waste of judicial t

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal case No. 829 of 2018 and order dated 8.1.2019; allowance of the Section 482 application subject to payment of costs.

Deep Shikha and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9356 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Deep Shikha And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anoop Trivedi,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satyam Narayan

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Present application has been filed to quash the criminal proceedings of Case No. 829 of 2018 (State Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Gupta and Others) arising from Case Crime No. 57 of 2018 under Sections 323, 307, 386, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Medical College, District Meerut and the order dated 8.1.2019 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.10, Meerut.

¶8

On 18.8.2022, following order was passed:-

¶9

" Supplementary affidavit annexing the compromise deed has been filed in the Court, the same is taken on record.

¶10

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned order dated 08.01.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 10, Meerut as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 829 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.57 of 2018, under Sections 323, 307, 386, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Medical College, District Meerut, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.10, Meerut with a further prayer to stay the aforesaid impugned order as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has amicably compromised their dispute and in respect thereof, they have annexed an original compromise deed endorsed as Annexure - 1 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶13

Whether the parties have, in fact, compromised the matter or not, can best be ascertained by the Court below as such compromise has to be duly verified in presence of the parties concerned before the Court.

¶14

Both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court below on 05.09.2022 and file their comprise application. The court below is

¶15

directed to pass an order on the said compromise application and all formalities completed within two months from that date. The concerned Magistrate will sent a report to this Court whether the said compromise took place or not.

¶16

List this case in the week commencing 31.10.2022, along with the report regarding compromise.

¶17

In the meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶18

Office is directed to return the original copy of compromise deed filed with this application to counsel for the applicant and a photocopy of the same be kept on record.

¶19

Counsel for the applicants is directed to inform the counsel for the opposite party No. 2, if any, before the court below or the opposite party No. 2 itself regarding the date fixed by this Court for appearing before the court below."

¶20

Applicant no.1 had claimed to be wife of Pankaj Tyagi. It is in that context that Smt. Anjul/Opposite Party No.2 had launched the present prosecution claiming to be the first wife of said Pankaj Tyagi. Cross cases came to be lodged arising from such development. However with passage of time, all three parties have resolved their dispute such that as on date present applicant has parted company with Pankaj Tyagi leaving him in company of his first wife, Smt. Anjul.

¶21

Upon such change of circumstance, parties have resolved their dispute. They have realised that their real dispute was civil in nature which came to be given colour of criminal litigation.

¶22

While such submission have been first advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant confirms the same.

¶23

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:

¶24

" 5. 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.

¶25

6. The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of the present case and other similar cases present where, though the

¶26

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.

¶27

7. 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.

¶28

8. 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.

¶29

9. 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.

¶30

10. 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. "

¶31

Accordingly, 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 .

¶32

The criminal proceedings of Case No. 829 of 2018 arising from Case Crime No. 57 of 2018 under Sections 323, 307, 386, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Medical College, District Meerut and the order dated 8.1.2019 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.10, Meerut are quashed.

¶33

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Deepika

¶34

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

Deep Shikha and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deep Shikha 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

Vijay Singh and Another 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

Rameshwar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chhatrasal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Surendra Kumar Varun and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others