Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 970 Cal
Judgement Date : 3 March, 2022
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
CRR 1977 of 2021 With CRAN 1 of 2021
Sanket Barick & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ivan Roy
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Partha Sarathi Das
For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee
Mr. Imran Ali
Ms. Debjani Sahu
Heard on : 03.03.2022
Judgment on : 03.03.2022
Jay Sengupta, J.:
This is an application for quashing of a proceeding being G.R. case No.
4136 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas in which charge sheet was submitted under
sections 498A, 406 and read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as
follows. The petitioners are the husband and the in-laws of the de facto
complainant / opposite party no. 2. During pendency of the proceeding, a
compromise and settlement has been arrived at between the private parties of
all disputes that had led to the registration of the F.I.R. and a joint compromise
application has been filed in this regard. Stridhan articles were also returned
to the wife. An application for mutual divorce has been filed by the parties
before the learned Civil Court. In view of the settlement arrived at between
the parties, the impugned proceeding ought to be quashed.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case
diary and files a copy of the subsequent statement of the victim lady recorded
on 21.02.2022 by the investigating agency. The same is taken on record. He
submits as follows. This is a case where charge sheet was submitted only
against the husband. However, pursuant to an application made by the wife a
direction was passed to further investigate the offences. From the statement
of the victim lady it appears that a settlement has indeed been arrived at
between the parties. There is no injury report regarding any physical assault
suffered by the victim. The State would not come in the way if a compromise
and settlement is arrived at between the private parties.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the petitioner, the State and the opposite party no. 2 and have
perused the revision petition, the case diary and the subsequent statement of
the victim girl recorded under Section 161 of the Code.
It appears that a compromise and settlement has indeed been arrived
at between the private parties of all disputes that had led to the initiation of the
present proceeding.
In my view, this is a fit case for quashing of the impugned proceeding
on the ground of settlement as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2012)10 SCC
303.
In view of the above, I quash the impugned proceeding on the ground
of settlement arrived at between the private parties.
With these observations, the revisional application, along with the
connected application, is disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the
parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta,J.)
AB
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!