Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Pal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 9 February, 2023
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35567 of 2022 Applicant :- Dharmendra Pal And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Hare Krishna Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Hare Krishna Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ravi Shankar Yadav holding breif of Sri Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
2. Present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 662 of 2020 (State Vs. Dharmendra Pal and Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 190 of 2019, under Sections - 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Raksha, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi.
3. On 03.11.2022 the following order had been passed:
"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed with the prayer to quash entire proceedings of Sessions Case No.662 of 2020 (State Versus Dharmendra Pal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.190 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station Raksha, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi on the basis of compromise dated 19.10.2022 in between the applicants and opposite party no.2.
Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the parties have entered into a compromise which has been filed before the court concerned. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has filed short counter affidavit in which factum of compromise has been admitted by the opposite party no.2.
In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that written compromise has been filed before the court concerned, it is directed that the parties shall appear before the court concerned within three weeks from today and get the compromise verified.
The learned Magistrate shall verify the compromise, after proper identification and submit a report before this Court by the next date fixed. Learned counsel for the applicants may also obtain the copy of verification order and file it before this Court.
List this case as fresh on 08.12.2022, showing the name of Sri Yogesh Kumar Tiwari as counsel for the opposite party no.2.
Till the next date of listing, no coercive measure shall be adopted against the applicants in the aforesaid case"
4. In compliance thereto, the parties have appeared before the learned court below in support of the written settlement deed drawn between them dated 09.01.2023. The same has been verified by the learned court below vide order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jhansi.
5. Thus it has been submitted, the parties are residents of the same village. A petty altercation had erupted between them, at the spur of the moment. Owning to misunderstandings and misgivings exaggerated allegations came to be levelled in the FIR as has let to this prosecution. However, with passage of time the parties have been able to resolve their misgivings and misunderstandings. At present, both sides understand, no occurrence took place and no offence was committed. As to the injuries, it has been submitted those were simple in nature and not caused as a result of any intent to inflict injuries. Above submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants have been confirmed as true and correct by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
6. 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 alct to the above, order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned court below as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 560 of 2018 (State Vs. Haji Anees and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 615 of 2015, for the offence under Sections 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C., relating to Police Station - Sardhana, District Meerut, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Sardhana, Meerut is quashed.low 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."
7. 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. 12,500/- (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.
8. 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.
9. Subject to the above, the entire proceedings of Sessions Case No. 662 of 2020 (State Vs. Dharmendra Pal and Ors.), arising out of Case Crime No. 190 of 2019, under Sections - 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) Da, Dha of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Raksha, District Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi is quashed so far it relates to the present applicant.
Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Ashutosh