08.01.2025

Serial no. 22

Ct. No. 30

Piya

CRR 1472 of 2024

+

IA No.: CRAN 7 of 2025

Arijit Das

Vs

The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Koel Mukherjee Mr. Anurag Sardar

Mr. M. Murshed

……… for the Petitioner

Mr. Arijit Ganguly Ms. Poulami Bose

…………. for the State

Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee

Ms. Moumita Pandit

Ms. Ritushree Banerjee

……. For the Opposite Party No. 2

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for

setting aside of order dated 27th February, 2024 whereby the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bench-I, Bichar Bhawan, at Calcutta was inter alia pleased to reject the application for discharge and frame charges under Section 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner herein in connection with of Park Street Police Station Case No. 250 of 2019 dated 25.12.2019 under Section 376/417/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code and the corresponding proceeding

Sessions Case No. 26 of 2021.

2. CRAN 7 of 2025 filed, is a joint application on affidavit stating that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement in the present case and the complainant/opposite party does not have any grievance if the proceedings in the present case is quashed in respect of the petitioner.

3. A Three Judge Bench of the Court in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 303, Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and another has cleared the position in respect of the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in para 61 of the judgment, which is reproduced here in:-

“The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words