Dolan Chowdhury (Mentioned As Dola Guha In The Complain Petition) v. State Of West Bengal And ANR
21.05.2024 Serial no. 30 Piya Ct. No. 30 CRR 4590 of 2022 + IA No.: CRAN 3 of 2024 Dolan Chowdhury (mentioned as Dolan Guha in the petition of complaint) vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Dipanjan Dutt Mr. Ayan Chakraborty Ms. Sohini Mukherjee ......... for the Petitioner Mr. Suman De Ms. Sujata Das ... for the State Mr. Debabrata Roy Ms. Karabi Roy Mr. Souvik Mondal ... for the Opposite Party No. 2 1.
The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings in Technocity Police Station Case No. 186 of 2022 dated 01.10.2022 under Sections 420/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat.
2.
CRAN 3 of 2024 filed, is a joint application on affidavit stating that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement in present case and complainant/opposite party does not have any grievance
if the proceedings in the present case is quashed in respect of the petitioner.
3.
It is stated in the joint petition of compromise (CRAN 3 of 2024) that an amicable settlement was arrived at between the applicant No.1 on one hand and the applicant No. 2 on the other. The applicants have agreed, inter alia, to resolve their disputes amicably out of Court settlement on mutual consent and to cause withdrawal of GR Case No. 4719 of 2022 pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat as also corresponding proceedings of Technocity Police Station Case No. 186/2022 dated 01.10.2022 under Sections 420/406/506 of Indian Penal Code in a memorandum of settlement dated 18th April, 2024 was duly executed between the applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 in that respect.
4.
The applicants state that in terms of terms of settlement dated 18th April, 2024 the applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 2 have decided to resolve their disputes amicably out of Court settlement on mutual consent and the applicants will file necessary applications before the respective Hon'ble and Learned Courts for withdrawal of the ongoing proceedings.
5.
The applicants No. 1 and 2 state that in terms of the said memorandum of settlement, the applicant no. 1 has also decided to take necessary steps to transfer the ownership
the car being WB08D 0134 in favor of the applicant no. 2 and the applicant no. 1 shall not claim any ownership over and in respect of the said car. Furthermore, the applicants are taking all the necessary steps in terms of the said Memorandum of Settlement dated 18th April, 2024 executed between the applicants.
6.
That in view of the said amicable settlement arrived at between the parties and as per the terms of the said settlement, the applicant No.2 herein states that he has no further desire to continue with the prosecution of the proceeding initiated at his behest, being G.R Case No. 4719 of 2022, pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat as also corresponding proceedings of Technocity Police Station Case No. 186/2022 dated 01.10.2022 under Sections 420/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat. The applicant No.2 herein states that he has no objection whatsoever if the said application is allowed and the proceeding impugned therein is quashed by this Hon'ble Court through exercise of its inherent jurisdiction as preserved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7.
A Three Judge Bench of the Court in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 303, Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another has cleared the position in respect of the power of
the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in para 61 of the judgment, which is reproduced here in:- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : 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 FIR may be exercised where the offender and the 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 a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the 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 predominatingly civil flavour stand on a 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.
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 continue with criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
8.
In Anita Maria Dias & Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 290.
The Court held:- (a) Offences which are predominant of civil character, commercial transaction should be quashed when parties have resolved their dispute.
(b) Timing of settlement would be crucial for exercise of power or declining to exercise power (stage of proceedings).
9.
The joint application filed by the parties clearly shows that an amicable settlement and compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the complainant does not wish to proceed with the criminal case against the petitioners being Technocity Police Station Case No. 186 of 2022 dated 01.10.2022 under Sections 420/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat.
10. From the materials on record, it is clear that dispute in the present case is a private dispute and the parties have
now resolved their entire dispute by way of a compromise/settlement on affidavit and as such the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice could be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the complainant. As in the words of the Supreme Court in (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, (Supra)).
11. As such this court is of the view that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings which would tantamount to abuse of process of law in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties in respect of their dispute and to secure the ends of justice it would be prudent to quash the proceedings in the case as prayed for.
12. Accordingly, the revisional application being CRR 4590 of 2022 is allowed.
13. The proceedings in Technocity Police Station Case No. of dated 01.10.2022 under Sections 420/406/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, is hereby quashed in respect of petitioner.
14. All connected Applications, if any, stands disposed of.
15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
16. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.
17. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)