Allahabad High Court
Praveen Kumar And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And ... on 19 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4622 of 2022 Applicant :- Praveen Kumar And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Naveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicants as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants namely Praveen Kumar, Devesh Pandey and Shashi Raj Pandey with the prayer to quash the Charge Sheet No. 397 of 2012, dated 02.09.2012 filed under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 441 I.P.C. and cognizance/summoned order dated 06.11.2012 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No. 3097 of 2012 (State vs. Bhagwan Das and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 308 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 356 and 341 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there were two criminal cases lodged by the applicants and opposite party no.2 against each other and it was decided by the parties to settle the dispute amicably by filing a compromise and in this process in the criminal case instituted by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants, a written compromise was filed before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and vide order dated 18.05.2017 the proceedings of the criminal case instituted on behalf of the applicants was quashed.
It is further submitted that in this case also the opposite party no.2 had filed an application on 30.11.2006, on the basis of the compromise which had taken place between the parties requesting the Court to quash the proceedings of this case and thereafter the opposite party no.2 is not appearing for the purpose of verification of compromise.
It is further submitted that though the charge-sheet in this case was filed in the year 2012. Applicant was under the impression that the dispute between the parties have been settled, as an application in this regard has also been moved by the opposite party no.2, so they did not appear before the trial court and the trial Court has now issued non-bailable warrants against the applicants.
It is also submitted that since the dispute between the parties were amicably settled, the proceedings of the case pending before the court below is nothing but the abuse of the process of law and the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that it was in the year 2012, the charge sheet in this case has been filed against the applicants and thereafter the applicants appears to be not appearing before the trial Court. They have also not obtained bail order and, therefore, for all purposes they have become absconders and could not claim any discretion of the Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the charge sheet in this case was filed against the applicants in the year 2012. The applicants have brought on record a typed copy of the order sheet pertaining to the year 2013-14 and thereafter of the date 16.04.2022, which shows that the trial Court has issued non-bailable warrants against applicants. There is nothing on record which may suggest as to what had happened between year 2014 and 16.04.2022. According to learned counsel for the applicants the dispute was amicably settled between the parties and the criminal case which has been instituted by the applicant's party against opposite party no.2 has been quashed on the basis of a compromise filed before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. However, an application was also stated to be given by the opposite party no.2 to 4 in the trial Court for the purpose of quashing the proceedings of this case but he is not pursuing the application nor is appearing for the verification of the compromise.
The submissions which has been advanced by learned counsel for the applicants pertaining to the compromise which was allegedly taken placed between the applicants and opposite party no.2 is not available on record. What is made available is of application given by the opposite party no.2, that too is a photostat copy and in absence of the admission of opposite party no.2 no inference pertaining to the compromise could be inferred.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq, another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, Parabatbhai Ahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2017 SC 4843 and lastly State of Gujrat Vs Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019, the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending before the court below is hereby refused.
The crux of the matter appears to be that applicants are not appearing before the trial Court for the last 10 years and now they are intending to appear before the trial Court for the purpose of participation in the proceedings. However, they are having an apprehension that the moment they will appear before the trial Court, the disposal of their bail application may take sometime and in the meantime they may be confined in prison as already coercive process of non-bailable warrants have been issued against them.
A seven judges Bench of this Court in the cases of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC), Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 and In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021, have given various directions to criminal Courts for expeditious disposal of Bail applications. The ratio of above mentioned decisions is quite clear that, in the backdrop of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the personal liberty of a person is at stake, the bail applications should be decided, expeditiously.
However, it is provided that if any application for regular bail is moved before the trial Court by the applicant within reasonable time to say within 15 days from today, the trial court shall be under an obligation to disposed of the same, expeditiously, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law.
In the backdrop of aforesaid decisions and keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request of learned counsel for the applicant, the instant application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.7.2022 Praveen