Court No. - 64

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16161 of 2008

Applicant :- Dinesh Singh And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Lav Srivastava,V.P. Srivastava

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,S.K. Yadav,Sanjay

Kumar Yadav

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

Order on Criminal Misc Recall Application No.06 of 2022

Heard Sri Anurag Bajpayee, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri

Surya Pratap Singh, holding brief of learned counsel for opposite

party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

It has been stated that no dispute survives. Parties have entered

into a settlement. However, the matter remained unrepresented

owing to the death of earlier counsel for the applicant. In such

circumstances, the case came to be dismissed for want of

prosecution on 16.11.2021.

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 does not oppose the

submission so advanced.

Cause shown is sufficient.

Application is allowed.

Order on Application U/S 482 CrPC

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned AGA for

the State.

Present application has been filed to quash the proceedings

instituted against the applicants in criminal case no.1197 of 2008

(State vs Dinesh Singh and others) arising out of charge sheet in

case crime no.264 of 2008, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and

3(i)(x) SC/ST Act, P.S. Manikpur District Chitrakoot, pending in

the court of CJM, Chitrakoot.

Submission is that parties are of same village and the petty scuffle

had erupted between the parties over ploughing of field. Arising

therefrom exaggerated allegations came to be levelled. No real

occurrence may have taken place. The FIR came to be lodged by

the opposite party no. 2 owing to misunderstanding and misgivings

between the parties and not on account of any real occurance as

alleged;

At the same time, with the passage of time, since there was no real

occurrence or criminal offence committed, the parties have

resolved

their

dispute.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 does not dispute the

correctness of the submissions made by learned counsel for the

applicant.

In Application U/S 482 No. 17467 of 2022 (Dharamveer And 5

Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another), decided on 02.1.2023, 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. 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