Cannot Remain A Mute Spectator To Unscrupulous & Errant Behaviour: Allahabad HC Imposes Cost On Parties While Quashing Criminal Case Recording Compromise
The Allahabad High Court quashed a criminal case recording compromise between parties subject to payment of costs by them.
The court said that the costs are being imposed to let people know that Courts would not remain a “mute spectator” to “unscrupulous and errant behaviour by its members.”
The Bench directed the parties to deposit a cost of Rs. 4,000 with the High Court Legal Services Committee as a reminder and warning to the society and its members to “introspect and reflect at their actions and deeds” and the consequences that follow.
A Single Bench of Justice Gautam Chowdhary observed, “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.”
Advocate Jagannath Gupta represented the applicant, while Advocate Sanjai Kumar Pandey appeared for the opposite party.
The Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 323, 325, 308, 452, 504 and 506 of the IPC recognising the amicable settlement between the involved parties. The applicants had filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings.
The Court noted that the FIR was lodged due to certain misunderstandings which was verified by the trial court as well and observed, “it is apparent that parties have entered into compromise and appear to have settled their real disputes amicably…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.”
The Court stated that under normal circumstances, it would “ loathe” to accept 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,” the Court remarked.
Thus, the Bench stated that “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.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application.
Cause Title: Chhedi Lal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:103777)
