Uttam Das And Others v. State Of West Bengal And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Before:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta C.R.R. 1925 of 2020 CRAN 1 of 2021 Uttam Das & Ors.

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Mr. Sayan Mukherjee, Ms. Koyel Mukherjee, Mr. Mahfuz Murshed.

For the State :

Ms. Sukanya Bhattacharya, Md. Kutubuddin.

For the OP No.2 :

Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Mr. Shakti Halder.

Heard on :

01.03.2021 Judgement delivered on :

01.03.2021 Jay Sengupta , J. :

This is an application seeking quashing of a proceeding in which a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 406, 498A of the Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners are the husband and the other in laws of the de facto complainant/opposite party no.2. During pendency of the proceeding, a compromise and settlement has been arrived at between the accused/petitioners and the victim/opposite party no.2 and a joint compromise application has been filed in this regard. An application has also been filed before the learned Civil Court under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. In view of the compromise and settlement, the impugned proceeding ought to be quashed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant/opposite party no.2 submits as follows. A compromise and settlement has indeed been arrived at between the private parties of all disputes that had led to the registration of the First Information Report. The husband and the wife have amicably decided to part ways. A joint compromise application has also been filed in this regard.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and submits that the State would not come in the way if a compromise and settlement is arrived at between the private parties. I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition, the joint compromise application and the case diary.

It appears that a settlement and compromise has indeed been arrived at between the accused and the victim of all disputes that had led to the initiation of the impugned proceeding and a joint compromise application has been filed in this regard.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I quash the impugned proceeding on the ground of compromise and settlement arrived at between the private parties.

With these observations, the revisional application and the connected application being CRAN 1 of 2021 are disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.) Sl.56/NB