Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Biswa @ Biswajit Sarkar vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 5 April, 2022
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
C.R.R. 1054 of 2022
Biswa @ Biswajit Sarkar
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Susnigdho Bhattacharyya
...Advocate
For the Opposite party No. 2 : Mr. Debapriya Majumder
...Advocate
Heard on : 05.04.2022
Judgment on : 05.04.2022
Jay Sengupta, J.:
This is an application for quashing of an investigational
proceeding under Sections 376 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
as follows. The petitioner is an accused in this case while the
opposite party no.2 is the defacto-complainant victim. It was alleged
by the victim that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner took him
inside by force and committed rape upon her. The proceeding was
initiated due to some misunderstandings between the private parties.
Actually the defacto-complainant had an affair with the present
petitioner, but the husband of the opposite party no.2 forced her to
lodge the present First Information Report. At present, they are
staying together and a compromise and settlement has been arrived
at between the private parties.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto-
complainant opposite party submits as follows. A compromise and
settlement has indeed been arrived at between the private parties
and they two are staying together. In fact, it was at the insistence of
the husband of the opposite party no.2 that this proceeding was
instituted. At present, the opposite party no.2 does not want to
proceed with the case.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the private parties and have perused the
revision petition.
An offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code is one of the
most serious offences mentioned in the Indian Penal Code. This is
not only an offence against a particular individual, but is a crime
against the society at large.
One cannot be allowed to first file a complaint under such
provision and then take a different stand subsequently even before
the proceeding can be brought to its logical conclusion.
A different stand can be taken due to several reasons. These
could also be due to undue influence, coercion or some pecuniary
consideration. Our law does not encourage any of these
considerations to make the victim recant and take a different stand
at a subsequent stage. Therefore, one needs to be very cautious and
circumspect.
An offence under Section 376 of the Penal Code simpliciter
cannot be settled or compromised. When the proceeding has started,
it has to run its course and be brought to its logical end.
In view of the same, I do not find any merit in this revisional
application.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment may be
delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon
compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
55/Ct.39
ssi
