Allahabad High Court
Ram Swaroop And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 2 July, 2024
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106933
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13910 of 2023
Applicant :- Ram Swaroop And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Devi Prasad Tripathi,Manish Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Kumar Pandey,R.K.Paramhans Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Krishna Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Mr. R.K. Paramhans Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 and Mr. D.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State.
2. This application has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash the entire proceeding of Case No. 12293 of 2022 (State Vs. Ram Swaroop and others) arising out of case crime no. 494 of 2017, under section 366, 368, 376, 120B IPC, Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi as well as charge sheet dated 13.02.2019 and cognizance order dated 27.06.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi in the present case on the basis of compromise dated 14.02.2023, only against the applicants.
3. On 20.04.2020 the following order was passed:-
"1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Krishna Kumar Pandey and Sri R.K. Paramhans Singh, learned counsels appearing on behalf of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 respectively who have filed their vakalatnama today in Court along with affidavits which are taken on record, and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned State counsel and perused the record.
3. Previously the applicants had approached this Court in 482 petition being Crl. Misc. Application 482 No. 304 of 2023 (Ram Swaroop and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and another) in which vide order dated 09.01.2023 the following order was passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court:-
"Heard N.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the applicants is praying for quashing the charge sheet dated 13.02.2019 and cognizance order dated 27.06.2022 and entire proceeding of criminal case no. 12293 of 2022, under Section 366, 368, 376 and 120B IPC arising out of case crime no. 494 of 2017, P.S. Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi.
Contention raised by the counsel for the applicant that no role has been attributed to the applicant and police has perfunctory has submitted charge sheet in the matter. The Court is not inclined to have thread bare examination at this stage.
After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted against certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicants himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his client would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide their bail application within specific time frame.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that since learned counsel for the applicants has already given up that he does not want to press the case on merit, in the fitness of circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that the court below would extend the benefit of interim bail (in a given case, it is discretion of the court concerned) as contemplated in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. after the applicants surrender within 15 days from today before the court and if their bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-702, relevant extract of which reads as under :-
"?.......Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other services. They are missions for serving the society. The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the queue does not get his turn for a long time"....... "Decision of cases of under-trials in custody is one of the priority areas. There are obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial; vested interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings"....... "In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for success of the mission"..... "The Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in a state of helplessness. This is the constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure and of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts to ensure timely disposal of cases."
To satiate speedy disposal of the cases, the courts below are issued following directions in accordance with the observations made in the case of Hussain and another (Supra):
(i)Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week :
(ii) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years.
(iii)........................................................................................
iv)......................................................................................................."
The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.
For the period of 15 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.
It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 15 days.
The ratio mentioned above is the last word for every judicial officers for abiding with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the aforesaid scenario, it would be pertinent to refer the case of Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 08.07.2016 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15609 of 2016 whereby co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while taking into account the concerns of most of the counsels with regard to the long pending bail applications at lower courts' stage has expressed their anguish and concern.
In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Sessions Judge/the concerned Trial Judge is directed to ensure that the guidelines given in the case of Hussain and another (supra) as well as in Brahm Singh and others(Supra) has to be carried out in its letter and spirit, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn against the erring officers and this Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against them, if found that there is laxity in adhering the above directions.
In the event, the bail application is not decided within seven days as contemplated above, the learned Judge will have to spell out the justifiable reasons and record the same on the order sheet of such cases."
4. The said petition stood disposed of with a direction to the applicants to surrender within 15 days from the date of the said order and their bail application was directed to be decided in light of certain judgments which is cited in the said order. Learned counsel for the applicants therein had come up with the prayer for quashing of the charge sheet, cognizance order and the entire proceedings and had confined his prayer only for deciding the bail application of the applicants within specific time frame. It appears that in the meantime, parties settled their dispute out of Court and a compromise dated 14.02.2023 was drawn between them, copy of which is annexed as annexure 9 to the affidavit. Since the order passed in the previous 482 petition has not been complied with yet the applicant is directed at the first instance to comply with the said order.
5. It is joint case of learned counsels for the parties that the parties have entered into a compromise. Subject to the compliance of the order dated 09.01.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Application 482 No. 304 of 2023 (Ram Swaroop and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and another), the said compromise then be verified by the concerned trial court which is annexure 9 to the affidavit.
6. The concerned trial court shall verify the same within three weeks thereafter and send its report to this Court.
7. List on 18.05.2023. "
4. In compliance of aforesaid order, the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi has been received as is evident from office report dated 18.05.2023. A letter of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi dated 05.05.2023 has been placed on record along with affidavits, compromise deed as well as the order dated 05.05.2023 vide which the compromise has been verified in the presence of parties and their respective counsels.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that since the compromise entered between the parties has been verified by the court below, the entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case may be quashed by this Court.
6. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the parties also accept that the parties have entered into a compromise and the copy of the same has also been enclosed along with verification order, he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
7. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab; ( 2014) 6 SCC 466,
8. In the aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278 and Pramod & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another (Application U/S 482 No.12174 of 2020, decided on 23rd February, 2021) and Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 936 in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
10. Accordingly, the Case No. 12293 of 2022 (State Vs. Ram Swaroop and others) arising out of case crime no. 494 of 2017, under section 366, 368, 376, 120B IPC, Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi as well as charge sheet dated 13.02.2019 and cognizance order dated 27.06.2022 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi against the applicants, are hereby quashed.
11. The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. It is always open to the parties to approach this Court, in case, the verification has been done by playing fraud.
Order Date :- 2.7.2024
Arti
