Allowed

Manoj Goyal @ Neetu and 2 Others v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2023A482/99/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings arising from Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act. The court relied on a settlement reached between the parties, citing judicial evolution towards pragmatism. However, the order is conditional upon payment of costs to the Legal Services Committee as a warning against unscrupious b

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under SST No. 635 of 2021 arising out of Crime No. 467 of 2021 are quashed subject to payment of Rs. 12,500/- costs by the applicants to the Legal Services Committee, Allahabad within thre

Manoj Goyal @ Neetu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P through… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 99 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manoj Goyal @ Neetu And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Secretary Home And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Dhananjay,Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pawan Kumar Yadav,Shivesh Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Mohammad Khalid, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Pawan Kumar Yadav learned counsel for the private opposite parties.

¶6

Present application has been filed to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case/SST No. 635 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 467 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hapur.

¶7

It is submitted, petty dispute erupted between the parties at the spur of the moment which had led to exaggerated allegations being levelled. There was neither any intent to cause the occurrence nor any occurrence took place. In any case, the parties have been able to resolve their differences amicably such that a written compromise has been reached between them. It is dated 06.6.2022. Same has been verified by the learned court below/Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hapur.

¶8

The above statement made by learned counsel for applicants has been confirmed by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

¶9

In Application U/S 482 No. 17467 of 2022 (Dharamveer And 5

¶10

Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 02.1.2023, it has been observed as under:

¶11

"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.

¶12

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.

¶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

¶17

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."

¶18

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. 12,500/- (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, the the proceedings of Criminal Case/SST No. 635 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 467 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District Hapur pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hapur is quashed.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.1.2023 Faraz

¶22

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

Manoj Goyal @ Neetu and 2 Others v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Goyal @ Neetu and 2 Others v. State of U.P through Secretary Home and 2 Others

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

Rahis Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Chandra Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhes Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bheem Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Prabhu Pasi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another