Allahabad High Court
Ram Bharat Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 March, 2020
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4049 of 2019 Revisionist :- Ram Bharat Chaudhary Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sheetala Prasad Pandey Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. S.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 24.05.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Complaint No. 4939 of 2015 (Santosh Kumar Vs. Ram Bharat Chaudhary) by means of which court has convicted the revisionist under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti as well as judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2019.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the dispute between the parties was purely civil and private in nature. The complaint came to be lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and misgivings between the parties and not on account of any real occurrence as alleged. It is further argued that there never was any criminal intent on part of the revisionist nor any criminal offence as alleged had ever occurred. There are no injuries and at present, the parties to the dispute who are related to each other, have resolved their differences and made peace.
Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist has deposited the entire amount which was due to the opposite party no. 2 and hence, in view of the settlement reached between the parties, they pray another chance be given to them to develop and experience normal relationship. The continuance of the criminal trial may in fact hamper the otherwise good chance of the parties enjoying a normal relationship. In such changed circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 does not wish to press charges against the revisionist.
Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 does not dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionist or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the short affidavit on behalf of both the parties in which it has been stated that the compromise has entered into between the parties outside the court with the presence of some respective persons and now both the parties having no grievances with each other and are living peacefully.
Before proceeding any further it shall be apt to make a brief reference to the following cases :
(i) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675;
(ii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008)9 SCC 677;
(iii) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1;
(iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303;
(v) Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466;
In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the 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. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278] in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been expatiated in detail.
The son the revisionist and opposite party no. 2, namely, Santosh Kumar Pandey are present before this Court, who have been identified by their counsels. 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.
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, the Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the above mentioned complaint case as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the entire proceedings of impugned judgment and order dated 24.05.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti in Criminal Complaint No. 4939 of 2015 (Santosh Kumar Vs. Ram Bharat Chaudhary) by means of which court has convicted the revisionist under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Basti as well as judgment and order dated 16.10.2019 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Basti in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2019, are hereby quashed.
The present revision is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 5.3.2020 Priya