Allowed

Rajesh Kumar Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024A482/18792/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought quashing of criminal proceedings based on a compromise between parties. The Court, relying on Apex Court precedents, quashed the proceedings noting the private nature of the dispute and high pendency, subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Criminal Case No. 15782 of 2023 subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000/- as cost.

Rajesh Kumar Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:116272

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18792 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Short counter affidavit filed by counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel for the applicants, Sri G.S. Chauhan, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no. 1.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Criminal Case No. 15782 of 2023 (State vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh & others), arising out of Case Crime No. 599 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120 B of I.P.C., Police Station- Sipri Bazar, District- Jhansi, pursuant to compromise dated 01.04.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-

¶10

(i) the dispute between the parties were purely civil and private in nature;

¶11

(ii) the F.I.R. came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstandings and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence, as alleged;

¶12

(iii) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred.

¶13

(iv) at present, the parties to the dispute, have resolved their differences and have made peace;

¶14

(v) in view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship;

¶15

(vi) the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal

¶16

relationship; and,

¶17

(vii) in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.

¶18

It is submitted that the compromise deed had been filed by the parties before the trial court. Further, pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 1894 of 2024 (Rajesh Kumar Singh and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and Another), the parties appeared before the trial court. The trial court vide order dated 01.04.2024 has verified the compromise. Certified copy of the order dated 01.04.2024 is annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit.

¶19

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641.

¶20

Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He submits that he has no objection if the proceedings are quashed.

¶21

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 trial court.

¶22

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 in practically all criminal courts in the state, the continuance of trials in cases such as the instant case may only

¶23

work to the huge disadvantage of other cases where litigants are crying for justice.

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Considering 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 vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed insofar as the applicants are concerned.

¶27

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 six 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

¶28

case of two genuine litigants.

¶29

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 to payment of cost Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of six weeks from today.

¶30

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.

¶31

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Sachin Mishra

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Kumar Singh and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Singh and 3 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Bhargava vs State of Up and Another

Raju Kumar Alias Rajesh vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Pitam Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Hridaynath Mishra @ Rajan Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Umakant and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another