# Sanesh Thakur & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 751
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-17
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 20982 of 2017
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanesh-thakur-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50016
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

G.A., Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav

Dispute between parties-relating to grant of
advertisements to the newspaper published by
the Applicant no.1 from the opposite party no.2present prosecution is incidental and not natural
consequence-compromise between the partiesApplication for compromise rejected-impugnedsection 385 IPC not mentioned in either tables
u/s 320 Cr.P.C.-power of a Court u/s 320 IPC is
different from power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.-opposite
party no.2-a key prosecution witness-declared
his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the
Trial-allowing proceedings-waste of time -
compromise
accepted-proceedings
quashedApplication allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Sanesh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
751
a person wants his application to be
moved. As the case belonged to District
Meerut and it was decided by the
District Court Meerut, the District Court,
Meerut/Principal Magistrate, Juvenile
Justice
Board,
Meerut
only
had
jurisdiction to decide the question of
juvenility of the applicant. Thus, the
order dated 22.04.2017 passed by the
Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice
Board, Agra was an order passed without
jurisdiction.

26. The order dated 19.05.2017
passed by the Principal Magistrate,
Juvenile Justice Board, Agra in Misc.
Application No. 109 of 2017 (State Vs.
Munna) arising out of Crime No. 131 of
2003, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District
Meerut being without jurisdiction and
passed without issuing notice to the
applicant, is hereby quashed.

27. The application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. is, thus, allowed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 751
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 20982 of 2017

Sanesh Thakur & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Harish Kumar Yadav, Sri Suved Kumar
Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav

Dispute between parties-relating to grant of
advertisements to the newspaper published by
the Applicant no.1 from the opposite party no.2present prosecution is incidental and not natural
consequence-compromise between the partiesApplication for compromise rejected-impugnedsection 385 IPC not mentioned in either tables
u/s 320 Cr.P.C.-power of a Court u/s 320 IPC is
different from power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.-opposite
party no.2-a key prosecution witness-declared
his unequivocal intent to turn hostile at the
Trial-allowing proceedings-waste of time -
compromise
accepted-proceedings
quashedApplication allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ram Lal & anr Vs St. of J& K, (1999) 2 SCC
213

2. St. of Rajasthan Vs Shambhu Kewat & anr ,
(2014) 4 SCC 149

3. Gian Singh Vs St. of Pun. & anr, (2012) 10
SCC 303

4. Narinder Singh & anr Vs St. of Pun. & anr
(2014) 6 SCC 466

5. Parbatbhai Aahir Vs St. of Guj. (2017) 9 SCC
641

6. St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan & ors, (2019) 5
SCC 688

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar
Nigam, J.)

The brief facts of the case are that :

1. F.I.R. under Sections 385, 323,
504, 506 IPC was registered on 13.8.2015
at P.S.-Civil Lines, District-Moradabad
against the applicants who are four in
number. After conducting the investigation,
the Police has submitted charge-sheet
No.286 of 2015 dated 14.9.2015 under
Sections 385, 323, 504, 506 IPC against all
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the applicants. On 18.2.2016, Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Moradabad
has
taken
cognizance under Sections 385, 323, 504,
506 IPC and summoned the accused
applicants. Copy of the order is at page 30
of the paper book and Criminal Case
No.1146 of 2016 (State Vs. Sanesh Thakur
and others) was registered.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
accused applicants challenging the order of
cognizance dated 18.2.2016 as well as the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case
No.1146 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Sanesh
Thakur and others) pending before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No.2,
Moradabad.
Apart
from
other
grounds taken in the application, the
Counsel for the applicant submitted that
opposite party no.2 namely Asheesh
Agrawal who was the informant, moved an
application before the court below that the
matter has been compromised between the
parties and he does not want to proceed
with the case. It was prayed in the aforesaid
application which is at page 38 of the paper
book that in light of the compromise,
proceedings in case no.1146 of 2016 be
quashed.

3. This Court vide order dated
11.7.2017 stayed the further proceedings
against the applicants in case crime no.
586/2015, criminal case no. 1146 of 2016
under Sections 385, 323, 504, 506 IPC
P.S.-Civil Lines, District-Moradabad and
issued notice to the opposite party no.2.

4. Again when the matter was taken
up on 4.11.2022, the Counsel for the
parties submitted that the parties have
entered into a compromise and have
settled their dispute. On the aforesaid
submission, this Court vide order dated
4.11.2022 directed that the compromise
shall be verified within a period of four
weeks. The order dated 4.11.2022 is
quoted as under :-

"Learned counsel for the parties
submits that parties have entered into
compromise
and
have
settled
their
dispute. A copy of compromise was
placed before the court concerned,
however in absence of specific order it
was not verified.

Therefore, it is directed that the
compromise shall be verified within a
period of 4 weeks and thereafter a report
shall be send to this Court within a
period of two wee

Put up this case after 6 weeks."

5. After the order dated 4.11.2022,
learned
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.2,
Moradabad
submitted a report before this court
mentioning therein that matter has been
compromised between the parties and the
same has been verified on 03.01.2023.

6. In this regard, a supplementary
affidavit has also been filed by the
applicants which has been taken on
record on 21.02.2023 reiterating the
position
that
matter
has
been
compromised between the parties and the
same has been verified.

7. Learned Counsel for the applicants
submitted that as the dispute has been
settled amicably outside the court and
compromise entered into the parties has
been verified before the court below, the
present application u/S 482 be allowed and
proceedings of Case No.1146 of 2016
(State Vs. Sanesh Thakur and others)
4 All. Sanesh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
753
arising out of Case Crime No.586 of 2015
under Sections 385, 323, 504, 506 IPC,
P.S.-Civil Lines District-Moradabad be
quashed.

8. Learned A.G.A. submitted that it is
correct
that
the
matter
has
been
compromised between the parties. Learned
AGA further submitted that offence under
Section 385 IPC is not compoundable in
view of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the list
appended to Section 320 of Cr.P.C. and
therefore, the proceedings of Case No.1146
of 2016 (State Vs. Sanesh Thakur and
others) cannot be quashed. In support of his
contentions, learned AGA relied upon the
judgment of Apex Court in case of Ram
Lal and another Vs. State of J&K reported
in (1999) 2 SCC 213 and the judgment of
Apex Court in case of State of Rajasthan
Vs. Shambhu Kewat and another reported
in (2014) 4 SCC 149.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Ram Lal and another Vs. State of
J&K (supra) has held that Section 320
Cr.P.C. which deals with "compounding
of offences" provides two Tables therein,
one containing descriptions of offences
which can be compounded by the person
mentioned in it, and the other containing
descriptions of offences which can be
compounded with the permission of the
court by the persons indicated therein.
Only such offences as are included in the
said two Tables can be compounded and
non else. Sub-section 9 of Section 320 of
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1973
imposes
a
legislative
ban
on
compounding except as provided in the
section.

10. In State of Rajasthan (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no.15
of the judgment has held as follows:-

"15. We are not prepared to say
that the crime alleged to have been
committed by the accused persons was a
crime against an individual, on the other
hand it was a crime against the society at
large. Criminal law is designed as a
mechanism for achieving social control and
its purpose is the regulation of conduct and
activities within the society. Why Section
307 IPC is held to be non-compoundable,
is because the Code has identified which
conduct should be brought within the ambit
of
non-compoundable
offences.
Such
provisions are not meant, just to protect the
individual, but the society as a whole. The
High Court was not right in thinking that it
was only an injury to the person and since
the accused persons (sic victims) had
received the monetary compensation and
settled the matter, the crime as against
them was wiped off. Criminal justice system
has a larger objective to achieve, that is,
safety and protection of the people at large
and it would be a lesson not only to the
offender, but to the individuals at large so
that such crimes would not be committed by
any one and money would not be a
substitute for the crime committed against
the society. Taking a lenient view on a
serious offence like the present, will leave a
wrong impression about the criminal
justice system and will encourage further
criminal acts, which will endanger the
peaceful co-existence and welfare of the
society at large."

11. In reply, it has been contended by
learned Counsel for the applicant that there
is no impediment in exercise of powers of
the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
in quashing criminal proceedings where the
parties have settled their dispute amicably.

12. It is correct that Section 385 IPC
is not an offence mentioned in either of the
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tables referred in Section 320 Cr.P.C. In
case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Panjab
and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC
303, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that Section 320 of the Code articulates the
public policy with regard to compounding
of offences. It catalogues the offences
punishable under IPC which may be
compounded
by
the
parties
without
permission of the Court and certain
offences can be compounded only with the
permission
of
Court.
The
offences
punishable under the special statutes are
not covered by Section 320.

13. While considering the question
with regard to the inherent powers of the
High Court in quashing the criminal
proceedings against an offender who has
settled his dispute with the victim of the
crime but the crime in which, he is
allegedly involved, is not compoundable
under Section 320 of the Code, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Para 57 of the judgment
in case of Gian Singh (supra) has held that
quashing
of
offence
or
criminal
proceedings on the ground of settlement
between an offender and victim is not the
same thing as compounding of offence,
they are different and not interchangeable.
Strictly
speaking,
the
power
of
compounding of offences given to a Court
under Section 320 is materially different
from the quashing of criminal proceedings
by the High Court in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of
offences, power of a criminal court is
circumscribed by the provisions contained
in Section 320 and the Court is guided
solely and squarely thereby while, on the
other hand, the formation of opinion by the
High Court for quashing a criminal offence
or
criminal
proceeding
or
criminal
complaint is guided by the material on
record as to whether the ends of justice
would justify such exercise of power
although the ultimate consequences may be
acquittal or dismissal of indictment.

14. In paragraph 58 of the judgment
in case of Gian Singh (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court has laid down that where the
High Court quashes a criminal proceeding
having regard to the fact that the dispute
between the offender and the victim has
been settled although the offences are not
compoundable, it does show that in its
opinion,
continuation
of
criminal
proceeding will be an exercise in futility
and justice in the case demands that the
dispute between the parties is put to an end
and peace is restored, securing the ends of
justice being the ultimate guiding factor.
No doubt, crimes are acts which have
harmful effect on the public and consist in
wrongdoing that seriously endangers and
threatens the well-being of the society and
it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only
because he and the victim have settled the
dispute amicably or that the victim has
been paid compensation, yet certain crimes
have been made compoundable in law, with
or without the permission of the Court. In
respect of serious offences like murder,
rape, dacoity etc or other offences of
mental depravity under IPC or offences of
moral turpitude under special statues, like
the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants
while working in that capacity, the
settlement between the offender and the
victim can have no legal sanction at all.
However,
certain
offences
which
overwhelmingly and predominantly bear
civil flavour having arisen out of civil,
mercantile,
commercial,
financial,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences
arising
out
of
matrimony,
particularly relating to dowry etc. or family
dispute, where the wrong is basically to the
4 All. Sanesh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
755
victim and the offender and the victim have
settled all disputes amicably, irrespective of
fact that such offences have not been made
compoundable, the High Court may within
the framework of its inherent power, quash
the criminal proceedings or criminal
complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the
face of such settlement, there is hardly any
likelihood of the offender being convicted
and
by
not
quashing
the
criminal
proceedings, justice shall be casualty and
end of justice shall be defeated.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Narindra Singh and another Vs. State of
Punjab and another reported in (2014) 6
SCC 466 in paragraph no.29 has laid down
the guidelines by which the High Court
would be guided in giving adequate
treatment to the settlement between the
parties and exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code while accepting
the
settlement
and
quashing
the
proceedings or refusing to accept the
settlement with direction to continue with
the criminal proceedings. The guidelines as
provided in paragraph no.29.1 to 29.7 are
quoted as under:-

"29.1. Power conferred under
Section 482 of the Code is to be
distinguished from the power which lies in
the Court to compound the offences under
Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under
Section 482 of the Code, the High Court
has inherent power to quash the criminal
proceedings even in those cases which are
not compoundable, where the parties have
settled the matter between themselves.
However, this power is to be exercised
sparingly and with caution.

29.2. When the parties have
reached the settlement and on that basis
petition
for
quashing
the
criminal
proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in
such cases would be to secure:

(i) ends of justice, or

(ii) to prevent abuse of the
process of any Court.

While exercising the power the
High Court is to form an opinion on either
of the aforesaid two objectives.

29.3. Such a power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involve heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact
on society. Similarly, for offences alleged
to have been committed under special
statute like the Prevention of Corruption
Act or the offences committed by Public
Servants while working in that capacity are
not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the
offender.

29.4. On the other hand, those
criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and
pre-dominantly
civil
character,
particularly
those
arising
out
of
commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial
relationship
or
family
disputes should be quashed when the
parties have resolved their entire disputes
among themselves.

29.5. While exercising its powers,
the High Court is to examine as to whether
the possibility of conviction is remote and
bleak and continuation of criminal cases
would put the accused to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice would
be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal cases.
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29.6. Offences under Section 307
IPC would fall in the category of heinous
and serious offences and therefore is to be
generally treated as crime against the
society and not against the individual
alone. However, the High Court would not
rest its decision merely because there is a
mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or
the charge is framed under this provision.
It would be open to the High Court to
examine as to whether incorporation of
Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it
or the prosecution has collected sufficient
evidence, which if proved, would lead to
proving the charge under Section 307 IPC.
For this purpose, it would be open to the
High Court to go by the nature of injury
sustained, whether such injury is inflicted
on the vital/delegate parts of the body,
nature of weapons used etc. Medical report
in respect of injuries suffered by the victim
can generally be the guiding factor. On the
basis of this prima facie analysis, the High
Court can examine as to whether there is a
strong possibility of conviction or the
chances of conviction are remote and
bleak. In the former case it can refuse to
accept the settlement and quash the
criminal proceedings whereas in the later
case it would be permissible for the High
Court to accept the plea compounding the
offence based on complete settlement
between the parties. At this stage, the Court
can also be swayed by the fact that the
settlement between the parties is going to
result in harmony between them which may
improve their future relationship.

29.7. While deciding whether to
exercise its power under Section 482 of the
Code or not, timings of settlement play a
crucial role. Those cases where the
settlement is arrived at immediately after
the alleged commission of offence and the
matter is still under investigation, the High
Court may be liberal in accepting the
settlement
to
quash
the
criminal
proceedings/investigation. It is because of
the
reason
that
at
this
stage
the
investigation is still on and even the charge
sheet has not been filed. Likewise, those
cases where the charge is framed but the
evidence is yet to start or the evidence is
still at infancy stage, the High Court can
show benevolence in exercising its powers
favourably,
but
after
prima
facie
assessment of the circumstances/material
mentioned above. On the other hand, where
the
prosecution
evidence
is
almost
complete or after the conclusion of the
evidence the matter is at the stage of
argument, normally the High Court should
refrain from exercising its power under
Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases
the trial court would be in a position to
decide the case finally on merits and to
come a conclusion as to whether the
offence
under
Section
307
IPC
is
committed or not. Similarly, in those cases
where the conviction is already recorded
by the trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court,
mere compromise between the parties
would not be a ground to accept the same
resulting in acquittal of the offender who
has already been convicted by the trial
court. Here charge is proved under Section
307 IPC and conviction is already
recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore,
there is no question of sparing a convict
found guilty of such a crime. "

16. In case of Parbatbhai Aahir Vs.
State of Gujarat reported in (2017) 9 SCC
641, the Supreme Court again considered
that whether the High Court can quash the
FIR/complaint/criminal
proceedings,
in
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. After considering the
various judgments of the Apex Court on the
4 All. Sanesh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
757
point,
the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
summarised the following propositions in
para 16.1 to 16.10 which are quoted as
under:-

"16.1.
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
preserves the inherent powers of the High
Court to prevent an abuse of the process of
any court or to secure the ends of justice.
The provision does not confer new powers.
It only recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court;

16.2. The invocation of the
jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a
First Information Report or a criminal
proceeding on the ground that a settlement
has been arrived at between the offender
and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding
an
offence.
While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 Cr.P.C. The power to quash
under Section 482 is attracted even if the
offence is non-compoundable.

16.3. In forming an opinion
whether
a
criminal
proceeding
or
complaint should be quashed in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Section 482 the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of
justice would justify the exercise of the
inherent power.

16.4. While the inherent power of
the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised; (i) to
secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court.

16.5. The decision as to whether
a complaint or First Information Report
should be quashed on the ground that the
offender and victim have settled the
dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no
exhaustive elaboration of principles can be
formulated.

16.6. In the exercise of the power
under Section 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the
High Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous
and serious offences involving mental
depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be
quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such
offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon
society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in
punishing persons for serious offences.

16.7. As distinguished from serious
offences, there may be criminal cases which
have an overwhelming or predominant
element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the
inherent power to quash is concerned.

16.8. Criminal cases involving
offences which arise from commercial,
financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour
may in appropriate situations fall for quashing
where parties have settled the dispute.

16.9. In such a case, the High Court
may quash the criminal proceeding if in view
of the compromise between the disputants, the
possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would
cause oppression and prejudice; and

16.10. There is yet an exception
to the principle set out in propositions 16.8
and
16.9
above.
Economic
offences
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
involving the financial and economic wellbeing of the state have implications which
lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute
between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash
where the offender is involved in an activity
akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the
act complained of upon the financial or
economic
system
will
weigh
in
the
balance."

17. Again, in case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others
reported in (2019)5 SCC 688, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, considered the law on the
aforesaid point and in paragraph nos. 15.1
to 15.5 observed as follows:-

"15.1. That the power conferred
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal
proceedings
for
the
noncompoundable offences under Section 320
of the Code can be exercised having
overwhelmingly and predominantly the
civil character, particularly those arising
out of commercial transactions or arising
out of matrimonial relationship or family
disputes and when the parties have
resolved
the
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves;

15.2. Such power is not to be
exercised in those prosecutions which
involved heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact
on society;

15.3. Similarly, such power is not
to be exercised for the offences under the
special
statutes
like
Prevention
of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in that
capacity are not to be quashed merely on
the basis of compromise between the victim
and the offender;

15.4. Offences under Section 307
IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences
and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the
individual
alone,
and
therefore,
the
criminal proceedings for the offence under
Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc.
which have a serious impact on the society
cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of the Code, on the
ground that the parties have resolved their
entire
dispute
amongst
themselves.
However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention
of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge
is framed under this provision. It would be
open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is
there for the sake of it or the prosecution has
collected sufficient evidence, which if proved,
would lead to framing the charge under
Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would
be open to the High Court to go by the nature
of injury sustained, whether such injury is
inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the
body, nature of weapons used etc. However,
such an exercise by the High Court would be
permissible only after the evidence is
collected after investigation and the charge
sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during
the trial. Such exercise is not permissible
when the matter is still under investigation.
Therefore,
the
ultimate
conclusion
in
paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of
this Court in the case of Narinder Singh
should be read harmoniously and to be read
as a whole and in the circumstances stated
hereinabove;

15.5. While exercising the power
under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
4 All. Sanesh Thakur & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
759
criminal proceedings in respect of noncompoundable offences, which are private
in nature and do not have a serious impart
on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim
and the offender, the High Court is
required to consider the antecedents of the
accused; the conduct of the accused,
namely,
whether
the
accused
was
absconding and why he was absconding,
how he had managed with the complainant
to enter into a compromise etc. "

18. In case of State of Madhya
Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others
(supra), the Supreme Court has considered
the judgment in case of State of Rajasthan
Vs. Shambhu Kewat and another (supra).

19. From the perusal of the record it
appears that the real dispute between the
parties is relating to grant of advertisements
to the newspaper published by applicant
no.1 from the opposite party no.2 who is
running an institute, which is private in
nature. The present criminal prosecution
arose incidently between the parties and is
not a natural consequence of the real
occurrence. It is apparent that the parties
have entered into a compromise and they
further appear to have settled their dispute
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 these circumstances, it is apparent
that the 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.

20. 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 which are 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.

21. 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.

22. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and 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
the
parties
be
accepted and further taking into account the
legal position as laid down by the Apex
Court in case of Narindra Singh and others
Vs. State of Punjab and another (supra),
Parbatbhai Ahir Vs. State of Gujrat (supra)
and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi
Narayan and others (supra), the entire
proceedings of the aforesaid case are
hereby quashed.

23. The present application u/S 482
thus is allowed, subject however to
payment of cost to be deposited by the
parties before the High Court Legal
Services Committee, Allahabad, within a
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 certain persons. 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 and
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 take more time than a case of two
genuine litigants.

24. 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 Section 482 Cr.P.C.
application thus stands allowed, subject
however to payment of cost of Rs. 12,500/-
(2,500 on each party) to be deposited
before the High Court Legal Services
Committee, Allahabad, within a period of
three weeks from today.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 760
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 21174 of 2022
Bindu & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Madhaw Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Rajnish Shukla

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482-After lodging
of the FIR-I.O. submitted the charge sheetwitnesses have supported prosecution versioncorroborated
by
medical
evidence-criminal
proceedings cannot be cancelled lightly and
inherent power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be
exercise.

Application dismissed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Madhaw Prasad, learned
counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajnish
Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party
no.2 and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482
CrPC has been moved to quash the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No.124217
of 2021 (State Vs. Bindu Chaudhary and
others) arising out of Case Crime No.77 of
2021, under Sections 323, 504, 308 IPC,
Police
Station
Compierganj,
District
Gorakhpur pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate-III, Gorakhpur as well as charge
sheet dated 08.08.2021 and also NBW
dated 05.04.2022 issued against applicant
no.1.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that
opposite party no.2, Sanjay Kumar lodged
an NCR on 01.04.2021 about the incident
dated 09.03.2021 that on account of old
enmity applicants accused had beaten him