SANJU AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18608 of 2022

Sanju And 4 Others
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Brijesh Kumar Mishra, Santosh Kumar
                                Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Vinod Kumar Pandey

Court No. - 82
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State,
learned counsel for the first informant and perused the material on record.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing the
proceedings of Case No. 2445 of 2020 (State Vs. Bhagwan Singh and
others) arising out of Case Crime No. 46 of 2020 under Sections 147, 148,
323, 324, 452, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura
pending      before    learned    Additional   Civil    Judge     (Senior
Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.23, District
Mathura as well as to quash the charge sheet ddated 11.04.2020 filed in
the aforesaid case.

3. Vide order dated 01.07.20923, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had
referred the matter before the concerned trial Court for verification of the
compromise entered into between the parties. The learned trial Court vide
its report dated 21.07.2022 has reported that the matter has been
compromised between the parties, copy of which report is on record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that an FIR had come to be
lodged by the opposite party no. 2 owing to some misunderstanding and
misgivings between the parties. With passage of time they have been able
to resolve their differences and have settled their dispute amicably in
writing, which has also been verified by the learned trial Court. They
realise that there was no criminal intent on part of the applicants and that
no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant do not
dispute the correctness of the submission made by learned counsel for the
applicants or the correctness of the documents relied upon by him. He
submits that he has no objection, if the proceedings in the aforesaid case
are quashed.
                                                        A482 No. 18608 of 2022
                               2


6. It is contended that in view of the said compromise, the pending
proceedings before the court below be quashed in the light of the
Judgments of Apex Court in the case B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and
others, 2003(4) SCC 675, and that of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab,
2012(10) SCC 303.

7. The Apex Court in the case of B.S Joshi (Supra) has held that in case
the dispute has come to an end, under a compromise/settlement, between
the parties, then notwithstanding anything contained under Section 320
IPC there is no legal impediment for this court to quash the proceedings
of Section 498-A I.P.C etc, under its inherent powers in view of the
recorded settlement between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of
Gian Singh (supra) has held in para-61 that;

"the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or
complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences
Under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with
no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the
guideline engrafted in such power viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised
where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be
prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and
serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences
are not private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly,
any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity etc;
cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving
such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and pre-
dominatingly civil favour stand on different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes
where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties
have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High Court
may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise
between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him
by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
                                                         A482 No. 18608 of 2022
                                3


continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is
put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding."

8. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has
placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in the case of Narinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, Yogendra
Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653 and
Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC 641 and
has submitted that the applicants and opposite party no.2 have settled their
differences through compromise and as such opposite party no.2 does not
wish to press the aforesaid case against the applicants. Opposite party
no.2 is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of
the compromise, no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is
allowed to go on.

9. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that parties have entered into
compromise and appear to have settled their real disputes amicably,
which has also been verified by the Court below, copy of which report is
on record. Thus, it further appears that the opposite party no.2, who would
be the 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.

10. The court cannot remain oblivious to the hard reality that the facts of
the present case and other similar cases present where, though allegations
made in the FIR do contain ingredients of an offence. However, in view
such 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 in practically 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.

11. In normal circumstances, the court would be loathe to accept some of
such compromise arrangements. Sadly, even that course does not
commend itself 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 a lesson to
ones adversary often appears to be the only purpose of instituting a
criminal proceeding.
                                                          A482 No. 18608 of 2022
                                4


12. 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.

13. 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 Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012(10)
SCC 303, Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra), Yogendra Yadav
vs. State of Jharkhand (supra) and Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat
(supra) the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

14. 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 by 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 the same queue. The courts have no
mechanism to pre-identify and distinguish between the genuine and the
bogus litigant. That becomes known only after hearing is concluded in a
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 would require more time to be devoted
to them than a case of two genuine litigants.

15. 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 application 482
Cr.P.C. application stands allowed, subject however to payment of cost
Rs. 4,000/- (2,000 on each party) to be deposited before the High Court
Legal Services Committee, Allahabad, within a period of three weeks
from today.

16. 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
                                                                            A482 No. 18608 of 2022
                                                                5


                                    consequences that follow.




                                                                    (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    S.Ali




Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad