Smt. Ganga Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 21108 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 53
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26077 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Smt. Ganga Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Akshay Pratap
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandan Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

Amendment application as well as supplementary affidavit, filed by counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

Order on Amendment Application

The amendment application is allowed.

Let necessary amendment be carried out by counsel for the applicant during the course of the day.

Order on Order-sheet

Heard Sri Akshay Pratap, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no. 1 and Sri Vibhor Arora, Advocate holding brief of Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3838 of 2022 (Pratap Singh Tomar vs. Smt. Ganga Singh and others), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 327, 384, 120-B, 504, 506 I.P.C., arising out of Case Crime No. 0692 of 2019, P.S. Partapur, District Meerut, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that:-

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

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

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

(iv) at present, the applicant and opposite party no.2 to the dispute, have resolved their differences and have made peace;

(v) in view of the settlement reached between the applicant and opposite party no.2, they pray that another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship;

(vi) the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the applicant and opposite party no.2 enjoying a normal relationship; and,

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

It is also stated that the compromise deed between the applicant and opposite party no.2 had been filed before the court below pursuant to the order dated 8.9.2022 passed by this Court. The applicant and opposite party no.2 appeared before the Court below. They were duly identified by their counsels. The court below verified compromise vide order dated 11.10.2022.

Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant 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.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed, it may create further complication between the parties (in this case) and their families.

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 applicant and opposite party no.2 have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their aforesaid real disputes amicably. 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.

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

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.

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.

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 applicant and opposite party no.2 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 proceedings in so far the applicant is concerned is hereby quashed.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application thus may be allowed, in so far applicant is concerned, 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 case of two genuine litigants.

In such circumstances, though no useful purpose would be served in allowing the prosecution to continue any further against the applicant, however, no firm conclusion may be reached, at this stage, as to complete falsity of the allegations made against the applicant. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of, 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.

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.

The proceeding in the above mentioned case stands quashed only against the present applicant Smt. Ganga Singh.

Order Date :- 15.12.2022

S.S.