Sitanshu Sekhar Mondal & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1434 Cal

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

C.R.R. 1455 of 2020 (IA No: CRAN 1 of 2020)

Sitanshu Sekhar Mondal & Ors.

-vs-

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

For the Petitioner          : Mr. D. Brahma

For the State               : Mr. S. G. Mukherjee
                              Mr. A. Ganguly

For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. S. Choudhury

Heard on: 12.02.2021

Judgment on: 12.02.2021

Jay Sengupta, J.:

This is an application for quashing of a proceeding in

which a charge sheet was submitted under Sections 498A,

354, 377, 323, 313 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.

A certified copy of an order-sheet containing the interim

report of the mediator appointed by the learned trial court

filed in Court is taken on record.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

submits as follows. The petitioners are the accused in this

case. During pendency of the proceeding a compromise and

settlement has been arrived at between the accused and the

defacto complainant/victim of all disputes that had led to

the impugned proceeding. The husband and wife decided to

part ways amicably and a civil suit is pending on this. From

the mediation report, it appears that the matter was settled

between the parties and the report was placed before the

learned trial court. A joint comprise application had been

filed in this regard.

Learned counsel for the defacto complainant/victim

submits as follows. A compromise and settlement has

indeed been arrived at between the accused and the defacto

complainant/victim and a joint comprise petition had been

accordingly filed. In the interest of justice, the impugned

proceeding ought to be quashed on the ground of

compromise and settlement.

Learned counsel for the State submits as follows. There

is no medical report available in the case diary to support

the prosecution. The State would not come in the way if the

disputes that had led to the registration of the first

information report are settled between the private parties.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels

appearing on behalf of the petitioners, de-facto

complainant/victim and the State and have perused the

revision petition, the joint compromise petition, the certified

copy of an order sheet filed in Court and the case diary.

It appears that a compromise and settlement has been

arrived at between the accused and the defacto

complainant/victim of all disputes that had led to the

initiation of the impugned proceeding.

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 accused

and the de-facto complainant/victim.

With these observations, the revisional application and

the connected application being CRAN 1 of 2020 are

disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied

for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

10/Ct.32 rkd