Somnath Banerjee vs State Of West Bengal & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1657 Cal

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

CRR 1388 of 2020 with CRAN 1 of 2021

SOMNATH BANERJEE Vs.

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Debabrata Acharyya Mr. Sital Samanta Mr. Prabir Adhya

For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.

                                      Mr. Sudip Ghosh
                                      Mr. Bitasok Banerjee

For the Opposite Party No. 2    :     Mr. Abhishek Banerjee

Heard on:                       :     4th MARCH 2021

Judgment on :                   :     4th MARCH 2021


      The Court:

This is an application seeking quashing of an investigational

proceeding under Sections 376, 417, 420 and 506 of the Penal Code.

On the prayer of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, leave is granted to correct the cause title.

A report filed on behalf of the State incorporating a copy of the

statement of the victim under Section 164 of the Code recorded on

20.02.2021 is taken on record.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as

follows. The accused petitioner and the de facto complainant / opposite

party were both married to their respective spouses while the prime

allegation against the petitioner was about not keeping a promise to marry

and entering into a relationship. During pendency of the proceeding, a

settlement and compromise was arrived at between the private parties. In

view of the same the impugned proceeding may be quashed on the ground

of settlement and compromise.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant /

victim submits as follows. A settlement and compromise has indeed been

arrived at between the accused and the victim during the pendency of the

proceeding and a joint compromise application has been filed in this

regard. Both the parties have decided to lead their respective marital lives,

leaving the impugned proceeding as withdrawn and / or quashed. In fact,

the de facto complainant has got her statement recorded under Section

164 of the Code to this effect. In the interest of justice, the impugned

proceeding ought to be quashed on the ground of compromise and

settlement.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per the statement of the

victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code, she wanted to withdraw

the case filed by her.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on

behalf of the petitioner, the de facto complainant and the State and have

perused the revisional application, the joint compromise application, the

case diary and the report filed on behalf of the State.

It appears that that the alleged victim is a major lady. Both the

victim and the accused petitioner were married to their respective

spouses. Therefore, this is a case where an adult married woman had

alleged that the accused petitioner, who was also married to his respective

spouse, entered into a relationship on the promise of marrying the victim

lady. On such facts, it would have been difficult to sustain the

prosecution case.

However, it further appears that subsequently, a settlement has

been arrived at between the private parties.

On the above facts, it would be futile to continue with the

prosecution.

In view of the above, I quash the impugned proceeding.

The revisional application and the connected application are

disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the

parties expeditiously, if applied for.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)

SB