Allahabad High Court
Bhattali And 3 Othes vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Vivek Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4864 of 2023
Applicant :- Bhattali And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chahar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kapil Kumar
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no. 1 and Sri Kapil Kumar, counsel for the opposite party no.2.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding of Case Crime No. 260 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Koshikalan, District Mathura arising out of charge-sheet dated 2.2.2008, on the basis of the compromise between the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that:-
(i) the dispute between the parties was purely civil and private in nature;
(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;
(iii) in the alleged incident no person has sustained any injury. No injury report is available on record;
(iv) there never was any criminal intent on part of the applicants nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred;
(v) at present, the parties to the dispute, have resolved their differences and have made peace;
(vi) in view of the settlement reached between the parties, the parties pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship;
(vii) the continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship; and,
(viii) in such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the applicants.
It is stated that pursuant to the order dated 9.2.2023 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the Court below. The compromise deed was filed. The court below verified the said compromise on 21.2.2023. The copy of the compromise deed and the order dated 21.2.2023 are collectively annexed as Annexure S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit.
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.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that if the criminal prosecution is allowed to proceed, it may create further complication in the otherwise normal relationship that is arising between the hitherto bitterly estranged couple and their families.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed short counter affidavit in the present case. He submits that the opposite party no. 2 has no objection if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed. He does not dispute the correctness of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him.
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.
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 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.
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 case of two genuine litigants.
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 applicant. 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.
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.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
S.S.
