Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Singh And 7 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 19 June, 2020
Author: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 36 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11269 of 2020 Applicant :- Mahendra Singh And 7 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
The matter has been placed at the behest of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
Shri R.P. Yadav has filed his Vakalatnama for the original complainant Lakhan Singh son of Sri Shankar.
The parties are litigating since 1989, the accused eight in numbers belong to a group of persons of the same village.
Mahendra Singh Accused No.1, now 65 years old and has been authorized to litigate for all. It appears that compromise came to be entered into on 7.2.2020, the complaint came to be filed exactly 35 years back in 1985. The dispute/incident occurred on 4.9.1984, it was not that major issue between the family members.
The learned Magistrate on 3.2.1988 took cognizance and summoned the accused for facing trial under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court has not proceeded further for 35 years, no witnesses were examined on 7th February, 2020 compromise before a notary has been entered into which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the petition.
The learned counsel for respondent-complainant has also accepted there is a compromise between the parties. The fact that many of the offences are in the realm of non compoundable offence, but the question is what would be end result of the litigation which is pending since 1985. If this Court does not accept the compromise and relegates the parties to undergo the process of going before the trial court, what would be the end result? It would be that the evidences would be led and at the end of the trial for want of evidence, the accused would be acquitted. It would be resulting into what I would call default acquittal when we are faced with both the pendamic and pendency as there is no element of morality or public damage at large. The Dispute being in the realm of petty dispute, the doctrine of judicial restrain cannot be brought into action here in this case.
The recent judgments of the Apex Court and this High Court will permit this Court to quash the proceedings defile the same and direct the court below to defile the proceedings. The reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioners on the decisions of the Apex Court for similar matter under Sections 149, 147, 452 relied by my brother (Justice Om Prakash VII) would be applicable.
The guidelines laid down in 2014 6 SCC 466, Navindra Singh and others versus State of Punjab would apply to the facts of this case. The material on record would go to show that end of the justice would justify exercising the power under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. I am also supported in my view by 2013 SCC OnLine Ald 5681, Saifula versus State of U.P. The petition is accepted. The proceedings of Complaint Case No.481 of 1989 (Lakhan Singh Versus Basudev and others), under Sections 323, 147, 149, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi are quashed and set aside.
The learned Judge to defile the matter without insisting the presence of parties.
Order be communicated through the District Judge, Jhansi to concerned Court by e-mail as expeditiously as possible.
Order Date :- 19.6.2020 A.N. Mishra