Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 71 (ALL)

Dinesh Kumar Maurya v. State of U. P.

2023-01-06

SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Sandeep Narayan Rai learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. 2. Present application has been filed to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 16852 of 2020 (State v. Dinesh Kumar Maurya and another) arising from Case Crime No. 284 of 2020 under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station Cantt. District Varanasi and the charge sheet dated 14.7.2020 and also the cognizance taking order dated 22.10.2020, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. 3. Earlier the applicants had approached this Court by means of Application under Section 482 No. 35078 of 2022 which was disposed of by following order dated 02.11.2022:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Sandeep Narayan Rai, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no. 2 who has filed vakalatnama which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled outside the Court by way of entering into compromise which is on record as Annexure No. 5 to the petition. The compromise has already been filed before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that since the dispute has been settled outside the Court by the parties, the said compromise may be directed to be verified by the competent authority so that the impugned proceedings may be quashed on the basis of said compromise and its verification report. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 concedes the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to this innocuous prayer. In view of the above the parties are directed to appear before the learned Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:3593 trial court on 24.11.2022 along with the copy of original compromise deed, who shall verify the compromise in presence of the parties within one week thereafter and keep a report of the verification on the record of the Court after providing its copies to the parties. For a period of two month, the criminal proceeding of criminal case no.16852 of 2020 (State v. Dinesh Kumar Maurya and another) arising out of case crime no. For a period of two month, the criminal proceeding of criminal case no.16852 of 2020 (State v. Dinesh Kumar Maurya and another) arising out of case crime no. 284 of 2020, under section 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Cantt., District- Varanasi shall be kept in abeyance. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. Liberty to the parties is granted to approach this Court again for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of compromise and its verification." 4. It is then submitted, in compliance of the above order, written settlement reached between the parties dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure-7 to the application) has been verified by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi by means of the order dated 22.9.2022 (Annexure-8 to the application). 5. While it has been submitted, real dispute between the parties was civil pertaining to money payment, owing to misunderstandings and misgivings between the parties, exaggerated allegations came to be levelled which resulted in the present criminal prosecution. 6. Since the real dispute between the parties has been resolved and there was no real occurrence, it has been submitted, criminal prosecution may be quashed. 7. Sri Sandeep Narayan Rai learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 confirms such fact statement made by learned counsel for the applicants. 8. In Application under Section 482 No. 17467 of 2022 (Dharamveer And 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another), decided today, 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. 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. v. State of Punjab & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (supra), Yogendra Yadav v. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir v. 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." 9. 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. 7,500/- (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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 11. Subject to the above, the proceedings ofCriminal Case No. 16852 of 2020 (State v. Dinesh Kumar Maurya and another) arising from Case Crime No. 284 of 2020 under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station Cantt. District Varanasi and the charge sheet dated 14.7.2020 and also the cognizance taking order dated 22.10.2020, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi are quashed.