Allahabad High Court
Akash And 4 Others vs State Of U.P.And Another on 25 April, 2022
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 86 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1207 of 2020 Applicant :- Akash And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Bhushan Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Singh Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gaurav Singh learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act )/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, District Rampur in Special Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2014 (State Vs. Akash and others) whereby the application 67 K and 68 K has been rejected and also to quash the charge sheet no. 283 of 2014 dated 18.09.2014 along with cognizance order passed thereon dated 22.09.2014, charge sheet dated 283A of 2014, dated 20.01.2015 and cognizance order dated 03.02.2015, charge sheet no. 283B of 2014 dated 30.05.2015, cognizance order dated 21.03.2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 321 of 20214, under Sections 354, 307, 352, I.P.C. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Milak, District Rampur.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR had come to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties. With passage of time they have been able to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably in writing, which has also been verified by the learned court below on 22.04.2022. They realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.
Sri Gaurav Singh learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. In fact, the compromise has been entered into between the parties. He submits that opposite party no. 2 has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed.
Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention 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 and has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their differences through compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.
From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and appear to have settled their real disputes amicably. Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no. 2, who would be the 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 allegations made in the FIR do contain ingredients of an offence. However, in view such 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. Sadly, even that course does not commend itself 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 a lesson to ones 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 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 by 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 the same queue. The courts have no mechanism to pre-identify and distinguish between the genuine and the bogus litigant. That becomes known only after hearing is concluded in a 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 would 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 applicants. The proceedings of Case No. 826 of 2012 (State Vs. Gopal Dhir and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 769 of 2011 under Section 380 I.P.C. Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 5th, District Ghaziabad as well as charge sheet dated 26.03.20212 pending before learned Special Judge (POCSO Act )/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, District Rampur are quashed, subject to payment of cost Rs. 4,000/- (2,000 on each party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three 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 :- 25.4.202/S.Ali