Allahabad High Court
Narendra Pratap Maurya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 January, 2023
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 64 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14881 of 2020 Applicant :- Narendra Pratap Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard SriRajendra Kumar Singh learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Anant Kumar Sant learned counsel holding brief of learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
2. Present application has been filed to quash the charge sheet dated 16.9.2019, cognizance order dated 23.7.2020 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2032 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 469 of 2019, under Sections 504, 507, 353 IPC, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.
3. While entertaining the present petition, following order was passed on 08.10.2020:-
"The question involved in this case is whether abusing a government servant admittedly over telephone, would lead to obstruction in discharge of public duties or amount to obstructing a government servant in the discharge his public duties?
Issue notice to opposite party No.2 returnable on 10.11.2020.
List on 10.11.2020 in the additional cause list.
Learned AGA and the learned counsel for opposite party No.2 may file a counter affidavit by the said date.
Meanwhile, further proceedings in Criminal Case No.2032 of 2020 State Vs. Narendra Pratap Maurya, (arising out of Case Crime No.469 of 2019), under Sections 504, 507, 353, IPC, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, shall remain stayed."
4. It is stated, parties have realised that no real occurrence had taken place. On account of misunderstandings, exaggerated allegations came to be levelled against the applicant. In any case, during pendency of present proceedings, parties have been able to resolve their disputes and differences.
5. Such fact statement made by learned counsel for the applicant has been confirmed 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 02.1.2023, 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 ofNarinder 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."
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. 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.
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, thecharge sheet dated 16.9.2019, cognizance order dated 23.7.2020 and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2032 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 469 of 2019, under Sections 504, 507, 353 IPC, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur are quashed insofar it relates to present applicant.
Order Date :- 12.1.2023 Faraz