Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 39

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt Paul, J.
Sharmila Bhattacharjee & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 121 of 2019
Decided On : 31-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Rajdeep Majumder, Advocate, Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocate, Abhijit Singh, Advocate, Binoy Panda, Advocate, Puspita Saha, Advocate

The High Court has the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings, including those initiated under Sections 420/406/120B IPC, where the dispute is private in nature, has been resolved, and the continuation of the proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused, particularly senior citizens, and where there is no prima facie case against them.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - 420/406/120B IPC - PRIVATE DISPUTE - SETTLEMENT - POWER OF HIGH COURT - INHERENT JURISDICTION - SECTION 320 CRPC - COMPROMISE - CRIMINAL CASES WITH CIVIL FLAVOUR - TIMING OF SETTLEMENT - SENIOR CITIZENS - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - INTEREST OF JUSTICE - ENDS OF JUSTICE
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them for offenses under Sections 420/406/120B IPC, alleging that the dispute arose from a property sale where the advance payment was not returned after the contract failed. The petitioners, senior citizens, repaid the advance amount, and the dispute was settled on 03.09.2018, with an additional sum of Rs. One lakh paid. Despite the settlement, a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 19.07.2020.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the dispute was private in nature and had been resolved, with the petitioners repaying the advance amount and an additional sum. The possibility of conviction was remote, and continuing the criminal case would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioners. The court found no prima facie case against the petitioners and held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute arose from a private contract and was subsequently settled? 2. Whether the continuation of the criminal proceedings would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioners, who are senior citizens? 3. Whether there is a prima facie case against the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the rulings in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and (2018) 3 SCC 290 to establish the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 2. The court held that in cases with a predominantly civil character, such as commercial transactions, the proceedings should be quashed when the parties have resolved their dispute. 3. The court considered the timing of the settlement to be crucial in exercising its power to quash or decline to quash proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision application and quashed the proceedings pending before the Trial Court under Sections 420/406/120B IPC.

JUDGMENT

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The present revision has been preferred by the petitioners/ accused persons praying for quashing of the proceedings being GR Case No. 393/2017 arising out of Bidhannagar (North) Police Station Case No. 92/2017 dated 16.05.2017 under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas.

2. The petitioner's case is centered around a property which is situated at BE - 91, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700 064. The petitioner no. 1 and her husband were the lawful owners of the said plot, which measures about 5 cottahs, wherein a two storied building was constructed by the late husband of the petitioner no. 1, namely, Manik Lal Bhattacharjee (since deceased) and the petitioner no. 1 along with her husband were lawfully possessing the said property.

3. After the death of the husband of the petitioner no. 1, in the year 2014, the complainant along with one Debabrata Banik approached the petitioner no. 1 herein through one Rabin Arya an erstwhile household help working in the house of the petitioner no.1.

4. Based on the intentions of the complainant and said Debabrata Banik to purchase the aforesaid property, the petitioner no.1 (being a law abiding citizen), entered into a memorandum of understanding with the complainant and said Debabrata Banik. The consideration value in the said memorandum of understanding with regard to the said property was to the tune of Rs. 4 crores. Moreover a certain sum was paid by the complainant and Debabrata Banik to the petitioner no. 1.

5. However the said complainant and Debabrata Banik, did not act as per the conditions stipulated in the said contract. The complainant and said Debabrata Banik were supposed to clear the outstanding payments within a period of six months from the date of signing of the memorandum of understanding. But the outstanding payments were not made within the stipulated period/time frame. On the contrary, the petitioner no.1 has not only returned the advance sum which was paid to her, but has also paid in excess.

6. Suppressing the aforesaid facts and circumstances a complaint was lodged by the Opposite Party No. 2 against the petitioners herein, with the Officer in Charge of Bidhannagar (North) Police Station therein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7. It was alleged that the petitioner no. 1 and her son, namely Shivaji Bhattacharjee, approached the complainant, stating that they were the lawful owners of a property situated at BE 91, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700 064, and that they were in a financial crunch and for which they wanted the sale of the property. It was further alleged that pursuant to a memorandum of understanding, a sum of Rs. 39 Lakhs was paid by the complainant. It was further alleged that the petitioners/accused persons did not act as per the terms and conditions of the said contract, and the petitioner no. 2 started hurling coercive threats to the complainant.

8. On the basis of the written complaint lodged by the Opposite Party no. 2, the Officer in Charge of Bidhannagar (North) Police Station registered a case being Bidhannagar (North) Police Station Case No. 92/17 dated 16.05.2017 under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioners.

9. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted its report in final form being Charge Sheet No. 101/18 dated 30.06.2018 under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Co-accused namely, Shivaji Bhattacharjee (son of petitioner no. 1) was not charge sheeted in the instant case. On the basis of the said charge sheet the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar was pleased to take cognizance vide order dated 07.07.2018.

10. The petitioners submit that the instant proceeding as initiated against the present petitioners is absolutely baseless, frivolous and displays a clear misuse of the pr