Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1062 (ALL)

Ghanshyam Das v. State of U. P.

2022-07-11

OM PRAKASH TRIPATHI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A for the State and also perused the record. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the summoning order dated 17.12.2015 as well as entire proceedings of Misc. Case No. 137 of 2015 (Tej Singh Verma vs. Ghanshyam Das and others) (Case No.3648 of 2015), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506, 379 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah. 3. The facts of the present case is that marriage of applicant no.5 solemnized with son of opposite party no.2 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals on 30.11.2013. Thereafter, applicant no.5 namely, Shalu Patel lodged the first information report against opposite party no.2 on 05.07.2014 in Case Crime No.316 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC. Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against opposite party no.2 on 31.07.2014. Subsequently, complaint was filed by opposite party no.2 against the applicants on 10.03.2015, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in Case Crime No.116 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 504, 506, 307, 379 IPC, with the allegation that on 05.07.2014, applicants entered in the house of opposite party no.2 having lathi and danda in their hands and committed mar-peet with opposite party no.2 and his family members. Investigating Officer submitted a final report on 20.04.2015. Thereafter, learned court below issued notice to opposite party no.2 as such opposite party no.2 filed protest petition under Section 190(1)B Cr.P.C. against the aforesaid final report. Thereafter, learned court below only on the basis of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and without recording statement of opposite party no.2 and other witnesses, applicants were summoned. Investigating Officer submitted final report on the basis of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 4. Perused the impugned order dated 17.12.2015 by which final report no.88 of 2015 dated 20.04.2015 relating to Crime No.116 of 2015 has been rejected and protest petition of the applicants has been accepted and applicants Ghansyam Das, Ashok, Ram Chandra @ Rammo, Vinay Patel, Shalu Patel and Shibhu has been summoned under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506, 379 IPC and cognizance has been taken under Section 190(1) (b). This shows that after investigation, final report has been filed and applicants have been summoned on the basis of protest petition filed by the complainant Tej Singh Verma, who is retired lecturer. 5. During pendency of this application, learned counsel for the parties contended that dispute between the parties have been amicably settled outside the court by way of compromise. Consequently, a compromise application has been filed before court below and this Court vide order dated 18.04.2022 directed for verification of the compromise filed by the parties which was duly verified by the court concerned on 10.05.2022 and report from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah has been sent to this Court on 17.05.2022. 6. It is submitted that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. Learned counsel for applicants further submits that interest of justice shall better be served in case entire proceeding of above mentioned case are quashed by this Court itself in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of relegating the parties to court below. 7. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 could not oppose the submissions urged by learned counsel for applicants. Learned counsel for informant/opposite party no.2 further contends that once opposite party no.2 has himself compromised the dispute with applicants and in pursuance thereof, he submitted a joint application before court concerned praying therein that case be decided on the basis of compromise, he cannot have any objection in case the matter is finally decided on the basis of said compromise. He has further invited the attention of the Court that opposite party no.2/informant was present at the time of verification of compromise. 8. This Court is not unmindful of the following judgments of Apex Court: 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 . vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [ AIR 2019 SC 1296 ] 9. In the aforesaid judgments, Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466 . vi. State of M.P. V/s Laxmi Narayan & Ors. [ AIR 2019 SC 1296 ] 9. In the aforesaid judgments, Apex Court has categorically held that 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. Various litigations are pending/decided between parties detailed as under : 10. From the perusal of record, it appears that one criminal case no.1925 of 2015 (State vs. Nikhil Verma and others), Case Crime No.316 of 2014 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Etawah has been decided by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 29.01.2019 and accused were acquitted. Another case was Hindu Marriage Act bearing Case No.555 of 2018 under Section 13(B) of Hindu Marriage Act has been decided on 28.08.2019, in which, marriage of Smt. Shalu Patel and Nikhil Verma has been dissolved. Another case no.658 of 2014 (Smt. Shalu Patel vs. Nikhil Verma), under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act comes to an end on 10.12.2018 and application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected on 10.12.2018. Complaint Case no.6595 of 2017 (Tej Singh Verma vs. Ghanshyam Das), under Section 500 IPC has been disposed of on 07.01.2019 as withdrawn. One case has been filed by Nikhil Verma under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act numbered as HMA No.20 of 2018 which has been dismissed as not pressed. Criminal Case No.4172 of 2016 (State vs. Saurabh Verma) under Sections 504, 506 IPC has been decided by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah on 02.02.2019 and accused were acquitted under Sections 504, 506 IPC. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned case. It is also submitted that case has also been compromised relating to matrimonial dispute. 12. As mentioned above, applicants as well as opposite party no.2 has filed several suit/applications against each other only with intend to create undue pressure. Such sort of unwarranted litigations create burden over our judicial system. It is also submitted that case has also been compromised relating to matrimonial dispute. 12. As mentioned above, applicants as well as opposite party no.2 has filed several suit/applications against each other only with intend to create undue pressure. Such sort of unwarranted litigations create burden over our judicial system. Courts are overburdened by such sort of litigations especially relating to family matters. Courts are used as a tool of harassment. Precious time of Courts consumed by such frivolous/vexatious litigations and due to paucity of time substantial litigations are delayed. Frivolous/vexatious incoming of cases should be checked. Legal awareness does not mean frivolous/vexatious litigations. Litigations should be for genuine cause/relief. Informant Tej Singh Verma, who is retired lecturer is well educated person. He has filed FIR against the applicants and after lodging the FIR police machinery came into motion and investigation has been completed by the police and final report has been filed. Thereafter, protest petition has been filed by the informant and on protest petition, applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. Thereafter, case is pending since 2015 and accused persons (applicants) had approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing impugned order dated 17.12.2015 in 2016 and thereafter, entire dispute has been compromised in 2022. The exercise made by the informant has created burden on the system. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of Misc. case No. 137 of 2015 (Case No.3648 of 2015), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506, 379 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District- Etawah, is hereby quashed on the basis of compromise and the present application is allowed, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/-as exemplary cost upon the applicants and opposite party no.2 each. The total amount of cost is Rs.20,000/-shall be deposited in the account of District Legal Services Authority, Etawah within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. This amount shall be utilized for benefit of the litigants according to the satisfaction of Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Etawah. Trial Court shall ensure the deposition of the said amount, before consigning the record. In default of payment of cost directed as above, order shall be deemed vacated automatically.