The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings in cases where the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties, but only if both parties are willing to settle the dispute amicably.

R.K. Bag, J.

The Petitioners have filed this Revisional Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the proceedings being Complaint Case No. 1450 of 2007 under sections 420/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta.

2. The Petitioner No. 1 was the Manager of M/s. Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Limited. The Petitioner No.2 was the Managing Director of M/s. Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Limited. The Petitioner No.4 is the Manager, Claims and Recovery of M/s. Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Limited. The Petitioner No.3 is the Deputy General Manager of M/s. Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Limited. The Opposite Party was also the Director of M/s. Wilson Surveyors and Adjusters Pvt. Limited. The Opposite Party filed the petition of complaint against the Petitioners on the allegation that the Petitioners used to prepare fake reports on behalf of the parties for making insurance claim. The present Petitioners preferred two revisional applications before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceeding started against the Petitioners by the Opposite Party. However, the said Revisional Applications being CRR No. 1425 of 2007 and CRR No. 3487 of 2007 were disposed of on 20th May, 2011 without quashing the instant criminal proceeding pending against the Petitioners.

3. It is submitted by learned Counsel of both parties that the Opposite Party started one suit against some of the Petitioners and others claiming damage and compensation for malicious prosecution. The Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court by an order dated 10th March, 2011 passed in C.S. No. 240 of 2008 gave direction for deleting the names of the shareholders of the Company from the said suit as there was no cause of action against those shareholders.

4. The Opposite Party and his son challenged the said order passed by Hon’ble Single Judge before the Hon’ble Division Bench by preferring A.P.O No. 151 of 2011, A.P.O. No. 238 of 2012 and A.P.O. No. 239 of 2012. It appears from the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 4th March, 2013 that both parties settled their dispute amicably between themselves and the present Opposite Party accepted the Pay Order of Rs.20,00,000/- from the concerned Company. It is recorded by the Hon’ble Division Bench that the Pay Order is accepted by the party in full and final settlement of the claim. The Hon’ble Division Bench has observed in the order dated 04.04.2013 as follows :

“Parties agree, there would be no further litigation between themselves and they will withdraw all the civil proceedings and criminal complaints pending before the appropriate Courts.”

5. Mrs. Rituparna Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, contends that the Opposite Party being the complainant of Complaint Case No. 1450 of 2007 did not withdraw the complaint pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, in spite of receiving Rs. 20,00,000/- by way of amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. Mrs. Ghosh further submits that the Petitioners had to invoke the Contempt Jurisdiction of this Court for intentional violation of the consent order dated 04.03.2013 by the Opposite Party. By disposing of the Contempt Application being C.C. No. 85 of 2013 on 12th August, 2013 the Hon’ble Division Bench observed as follows :

“The parties have settled their discord in the civil side. The selfsame cause of action gave rise to the criminal litigation. The applicant is given liberty to proceed before the appropriate court for quashing of those two proceedings.”

6. By pointing out the above observation passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the contempt proceeding, Mrs. Ghosh submits that the Opposite Party did not withdraw the two criminal proceedings being Complaint Case No.35175 of 2008 and Complaint Case No. 1450 of 2007 pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magi