Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Jay Sengupta, J.
Suman Pal And Others - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Another - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 506 of 2020; C.R.A.N. No. 837 of 2020
Decided On : 21-02-2020
Rajdeep Mazumder, Advocate, Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocate, Abhijit Singh, Advocate, Sk S Raja, Advocate, Anil Kumar, Advocate, Soumik Ganguly, Advocate, Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Advocate, Sayanti Santra, Advocate
The court can quash criminal proceedings based on the compromise and settlement between the private parties, especially when the disputes are of a private nature and the alleged offences are doubtful.
Headnote:
Compromise - Criminal Proceedings - The court quashed the proceeding under Sections 307, 324 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act based on the compromise and settlement arrived at between the private parties.
Fact of the Case:
The parties reached a settlement and compromise regarding all disputes that led to the filing of the impugned proceeding. The court found that the allegations of assault on the wife may not amount to an offence under the relevant sections of the Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the impugned proceeding on the ground of compromise and settlement arrived at between the private parties.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned proceeding should be quashed based on the compromise and settlement between the private parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the private nature of the disputes, the doubtful nature of the alleged offences, and the compromise and settlement between the parties as grounds for quashing the proceeding.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned proceeding on the ground of compromise and settlement arrived at between the private parties.
JUDGMENT
Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application for quashing of a proceeding under Sections 307, 324 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. During the pendency of the impugned proceeding, a settlement and compromise has been arrived at between the defacto complainant/victim and the accused regarding all disputes that had led to the filing of the impugned proceeding. A joint compromise petition has been filed to that effect by the private parties. There is no element of Section 307 of the Penal Code as would be evident from a plain reading of the First Information Report.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the victim/defacto complainant submits as follows. A settlement and compromise has indeed been arrived between the parties regarding all disputes that had led to the filing of the present case. In view of the averments made in paragraph nos. 5, 7 and 8 of the joint compromise application, the impugned proceeding ought to be quashed on the ground of compromise.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the State would not come in the way if any settlement is arrived at between the private parties.
6. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels representing the parties and have perused the revision petition, the joint compromise petition and the case diary.
7. Although there are allegations of assault on the wife, but it is doubtful that on the present facts the same would amount to an offence either under Section 307 or Section 324 of the Penal Code.
8. It appears that a compromise and settlement has indeed been arrived at between the private parties and as such, they are praying for quashing of the proceeding on the ground of compromise.
9. The disputes appear to be substantially of private nature.
10. 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.
11. With these observations, the revision petition and the connected application are disposed of.
12. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
