The High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings for serious offences like abetment of suicide based on a settlement, as such crimes impact society and require trial.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being S.T. No. 13(12)17 (S.C. No. 4(4)16 corresponding to G.R. No. 2421 of 2014 pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranaghat, Nadia, arising out of Hanskhali P.S. Case No. 652 of 2014 dated 28.10.2014 under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner’s case is that initially the present case was initiated under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. On completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate taking cognizance framed charge under Section 306/34 IPC against the accused persons.

4. The allegations against the petitioner herein is that:

“On 28.10.2014 one Samir Biswas S/o Lt. Niranjan Biswas of vill-Harnahi, P.O. Morao, P.S. Bansgau, Dist.-Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh submitted a written complaint to the effect that his daughter Mita Biswas (aged 22 years) came to the house of his brother in law Harish Chowdhury S/o Lt. Falaram Chowdhury of Benali Natungram, P.S. Hanskhali about one month ago. There Mita went to the house of one Panchanan Mallick (Maternal father in-law of Samir Biswas) at Bagula Purbapara, and on 26.10.2014 at 10.30 hrs. He was informed by Panchanan Mallick that Mita Biswas expired. Then Harish went to the house of Panchanan and then Bagula PHC where he found the dead body of Mita. He strongly believes that (1) Panchanan Mallick (2) Shyamali Mallick W/o Panchanan and (3) Pulak Mallick S/o Panchanan in nexus with one Prasanjit Das (who is known to Panchanan) murdered his daughter and to disappear the evidence, arranged for post-mortem over the dead body.”

5. It appears that the victim in this case on the date of incident had gone to the petitioner’s father’s house. The victim herein was aged about 22 years at the time of her death.

6. It appears from the materials on record including the case dairy that the victim died in the house of the petitioner.

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the State that trial has commenced and three witnesses have already been examined by the trial Court.

8. The Supreme Court in CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1025-1026 of 2023 and Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 12794-12795 of 2022, it was held:

“4. Having gone through the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings and discharging the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court has a ver