Allahabad High Court
Chhidda vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 May, 2023
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107029 Court No. - 32 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18143 of 2023 Applicant :- Chhidda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Adil Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Earlier, the Court has passed a below quoted order in Application u/s 482 No. 34748 of 2022 (Chhidda vs State of U.P. & Anr.):
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Sanjay Ojha, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled outside the Court by way of compromise and the compromise entered into between the parties is on record along with supplementary affidavit. It is further submitted that since the dispute has been settled outside the Court by the parties, the proceedings impugned be quashed in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab" reported in "(2012) 10 SCC 303".
Learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have no objection if the proceedings are quashed provided the compromise is first verified by the competent Court.
In view of the above the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 12.12.2022 along with the copy of original compromise deed, if not already filed before it, and the learned trial court shall verify the compromise in presence of the parties or their counsels within one week thereafter and keep a report of the verification on the record of the Court after providing its copies to the parties.
For a period of three months, the proceedings of Case No.3174 of 2020 (State Vs. Chhidda and others) in pursuance of charge sheet dated 09.11.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 04.07.2020, arising out of Case Crime No.312 of 2019, under Sections 420, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Didoli, District Amroha, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, shall be kept in abeyance.
In view of the above, the application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Liberty to the parties is granted to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of compromise and its verification.
Office is directed to return the original compromise to learned counsel for the petitioners as per Rules of the Court in case it has been filed here."
3. By means of annexure to the present application, it has been disclosed, the parties had entered into a written settlement dated 12.10.2022 which has been duly verified by learned court below vide order dated 13.12.2022 (copies annexed). Thus, it appears, the parties were involved in a civil dispute. Owing to misunderstanding and misgiving between the parties, exaggerated allegations have emerged. However, with passage of time, the parties have been able to resolve their disputes and differences. Thus, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the present prosecution to continue.
4. In Application U/S 482 No. 17467 of 2022 (Dharamveer And 5 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 02.01.2023, it has been observed as under:
"6. 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.
7. 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 practically in 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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 & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), Yogendra Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed.
11. 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 three 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."
5. 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 however to payment of cost Rs. 5,000/- (2,500 on each private party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
6. 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.
7. Subject to the above, the charge-sheet dated 9.11.2019 as well as cognizance order dated 4.7.2020 passed in Case No. 3174 of 2020 (State vs Chhidda & Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 312 of 2019, under Section 420, 504 IPC, Police Station - Didoli, District - Amroha, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha, are quashed.
Order Date :- 16.5.2023 Prakhar