Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 October, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:162861 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25062 of 2024 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Tripathi,Ram Charan Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused applicants challenging the charge sheet dated 23.01.2020, cognizance order dated 11.02.2020 as well as entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1368 of 2020 (State Vs. Amit Kumar Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2019, under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Ijjatnagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
2. Brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. was registered on 11.02.2019 at P.S. Ijjatnagar, District- Bareilly against the applicants who are three in number. After conducting the investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet No. 41 of 2020 dated 23.01.2020 under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. against all the applicants. On 11.02.2020, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly has taken cognizance under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. and summoned the accused applicants. Copy of the order is at page 33 of the paper and Criminal Case No. 1368 of 2020 (State Vs. Amit Kumar Singh and others) was registered.
3. Apart from other grounds taken in the application, the counsel for the applicants submitted that opposite party No. 2, namely, Dheeraj Gupta, who was the informant, moved an application before the court below that the matter has been compromised between the parties and he does not want to proceed with the case. Learned counsel for the applicants prays that in view of compromise, proceedings in Case No. 1368 of 2020 be quashed.
4. Earlier, this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 26802 of 2023 (Amit Kumar Singh And 2 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Another), stayed the further proceedings against the applicants in Case No. 1368 of 2020 for a period of two months or till the final order is passed on the compromise application by the court below. Order dated 26.07.2023 is quoted as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the Charge Sheet dated 23.01.2020 and Cognizance Order dated 11.02.2020 as well as the entire proceeding of Case No.1368 of 2020 (State vs. Amit Kumar Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No.131 of 2019, under Sections 420, 506 IPC Police Station- Izzatnagar, District Bareilly on the basis of compromise dated 16.06.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the parties have reconciled their differences and a compromise have entered between them which has been reduced in writing. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.(5) to the present application.
4. Learned AGA appearing for the opposite party no. 1 does not dispute the correctness of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the applicants.
5. Accordingly, it is provided that the parties shall appear before the court below and file a certified copy of this order within two weeks, along with the original copy of the compromise dated 16.06.2022. It is, therefore, expected that the court below may fix a date for the verification of the compromise entered into between the parties and pass an appropriate order to that effect within next four weeks.
6. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of.
7. For a period of two months or till the final order passed on the compromise application by the court below whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant.
8. In case, the applicants are still aggrieved or if no action is taken, it will be open for the applicant to approach this Court afresh."
5. After the order dated 26.07.2023, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly submitted a report before this court mentioning therein that the matter has been compromised between the parties and the same has been verified on 24.08.2023. The compromise verification report is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to this application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that as the dispute has been settled amicably and compromise entered into the parties has been verified before the court below, the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. be allowed and proceedings of Case No. 1368 of 2020 (State Vs. Amit Kumar Singh and 2 others) arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2019, under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Ijjatnagar, District- Bareilly, be quashed.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants had relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Narindra Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 and the judgment of this Court in case of Sanesh Thakur and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in Application u/s 482 No. 20982 of 2017 decided on 17.03.2023.
8. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer made in the application but could not deny the fact that the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. is compoundable in view of the table appended to Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is also compoundable with the permission of the court in view of table appended to sub-clause (2) of Section 320 of Cr.P.C.
9. From the perusal of record, it appears that the real dispute between the parties is relating to execution of sale deeds in pursuance of an agreement to sale dated 04.08.2016, which is private in nature. The present criminal proceedings arose between the parties is not a formal consequence of the real occurrence. The present criminal prosecution arose incidently between the parties and is not a natural consequence of the real occurrence. It is apparent that the parties have entered into a compromise and they further appear to have settled their dispute 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 these circumstances, it is apparent that the 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.
10. 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 which are 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.
11. 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.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, regarding the compromise entered into between the parties and taking the factor that offences under Section 420 and Section 506 I.P.C. are compoundable into consideration, cumulatively, the compromise between the parties be accepted and further taking into account the legal position as laid down by the Apex Court in case of Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and another (supra), Parbatbhai Ahir Vs. State of Gujarat (supra), State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others (supra) and Sanesh Thakur and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra), the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1368 of 2020 (State Vs. Amit Kumar Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2019, under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Ijjatnagar, District- Bareilly, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly are hereby quashed.
13. The present application u/s 482 thus is allowed, subject to payment of cost to be deposited by the parties before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad. 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 certain persons. 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 and 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 take more time than a case of two genuine litigants. Cost in the present case is quantified to Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 2,500/- on each party) to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks from today.
Order Date :- 3.10.2024/Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)