Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Shakil & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 17 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 828 of 2019
With
CRAN 2 of 2021
Md. Shakil & Ors.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Prantick Ghosh.
For the State : Mr. Md. Kutubuddin.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Md. Mujibar Ali Naskar.
No. 2
Heard on : 26.07.2023
Judgment on : 17.08.2023
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1.
The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the
proceeding pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim
Burdwan at Asansol, in Asansol Women P.S. Case No. 01 of 2018 dated
03.01.2018 under Sections 498A/323/406/506/379 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code and all orders passed therein including order
dated 09.10.2018 and 12.11.2018.
2. CRAN 2 of 2021 preferred is a joint petition of compromise. It is stated
therein in that after serving of copy in connection with present revisional
application upon opposite party no. 2/applicant no. 9, the parties entered
into a settlement for compromise of the entire dispute amongst themselves
including the present case. The said settlement was entered into on
23.11.2020.
3. It is also submitted that there is no collusion amongst the parties in
seeking the present relief through their joint petition of compromise.
4. That subsequent to mutual settlement and compromise between the
parties, they have also obtained a Certificate of Divorce from the office of
Muslim Marriage Divorce Registration on 28.11.2020.
5. That though the offences are not compoundable but keeping in view the
outcome of the case in trial and amicable settlement between the parties,
the continuation of the proceeding is not viable.
6. Copies of relevant documents have been annexed.
7. The following rulings are relied upon by this Court considering the facts
and circumstances of the case herein:-
(1) (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 303.
(2) (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 290.
The 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,
the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal
proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it
is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if
the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the
High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding."
In Anita Maria Dias & Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(2018) 3 SCC 290.
The Court held:-
(a) Offences which are predominant of civil character,
commercial transaction should be quashed when parties
have resolved their dispute.
(b) Timing of settlement would be crucial for exercise of
power or declining to exercise power (stage of
proceedings).
8. The joint application filed by the parties clearly shows that an
amicable settlement and compromise has been arrived at between the
parties and the complainant does not wish to proceed with Asansol Women
P.S. Case No. 01 of 2018 dated 03.01.2018 under Sections
498A/323/406/506/379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
against the petitioners pending before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Paschim Burdwan at Asansol.
9. From the materials on record, it is clear that dispute in the present
case is a matrimonial dispute and is private in nature and the parties have
now resolved their entire dispute by way of a compromise/settlement on
affidavit and as such the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the accuseds to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice could be caused to them
by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the complainant. (As in the words of the Supreme
Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another).
10. As such this court is of the view that it would be unfair and contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings which
would tantamount to abuse of process of law in view of the settlement
arrived at between the parties in respect of their dispute and to secure the
ends of justice it would be prudent to quash the proceedings in the case as
prayed for.
11. The revisional application being CRR 828 of 2019 is accordingly
allowed.
12. Proceeding being Asansol Women P.S. Case No. 01 of 2018 dated
03.01.2018 pending before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim
Burdwan, Asansol under Sections 498A/323/406/506/379 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and all orders passed therein
including order dated 09.10.2018 and 12.11.2018 is hereby quashed.
13. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.
14. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
15. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
16. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
