Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Samir Kumar Dutta vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 13 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 1091 of 2021
(Assigned)
with
IA No. : CRAN 1 of 2022
Samir Kumar Dutta
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Priyankar Basu.
For the State : Md. A. Hossain,
Ms. S. Das.
For Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Gazi Faruque Hque.
Heard on : 23.12.2022
Judgment on : 13.01.2023
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
The Revisional application is praying for quashing
proceedings/charge sheet of Bidhannagar Police Station Case No. 121
dated 18th August 2020 under Sections 341, 354 and 509 of the Indian
Penal Code corresponding to GR Case No. 525 of 2020 pending in the
Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar,
filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 on false and baseless allegations;
The dispute is relating to the tenanted premises wherein the
petitioner's wife and son are the joint tenants under the opposite party
No. 2 and others. On being threatened by them, the petitioner's wife
and son had lodged a complaint with Bidhannagar Police Station on
20th June, 2020.
On or about 30th June 2020 wife and son of your petitioner filed
a suit for declaration and injunction before the Learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division) at Bidhannagar being Title Suit No. 87 of 2020 and
also moved an application for injunction. The Learned Civil Judge
(Junior division) at Bidhannagar was inter alia pleased to pass an order
of injunction thereby restraining the defacto complainant and Brojo
Durlab Dhar, Minati Dhar, Ujjal Dhar and Aditi Dhar from disturbing
the peaceful possession of the family of your petitioner. The said order
of injunction is till subsisting.
The defacto complainant along with the other owners filed
another suit against your petitioner and his son before the court of the
Learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Barasat being Title Suit No. 426
of 2020 and the said case is also pending.
The petitioner, a senior citizen aged about 72 years obtained
Anticipatory Bail in the Criminal Case, but the police has filed charge
sheet on 30.11.2020.
Hence the present revision praying for quashing of the said
proceedings.
CRAN 1/2022 has been filed by the petitioner and the opposite
party No. 2 jointly stating there in that the dispute being civil in nature
(tenancy dispute) the matter has been amicably settled between them
by way of compromise and the opposite Party No. 2 has no objection if
the proceedings in Bidhannagar Police Station Case No. 121 of 2020
under Sections 341/354/509 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed as
they have no grievance against each other.
The Three Judge Bench of the Supreme 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 (amicably
settled/compromised) 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).
From the materials on record it is clear that the facts and
circumstances in the present case relate to a tenancy dispute and civil
in nature and the dispute between the parties was private in nature and
the parties have resolved their entire dispute by way of amicable
settlement and as such 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 could be caused to him
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).
Accordingly, CRR 1091/2021 stands Allowed. CRR 1091 of
2021 along with CRAN 1/2022 are disposed of.
The proceedings of Bidhannagar Police Station Case No. 121
dated 18th August 2020 under Sections 341, 354 and 509 of the Indian
Penal Code corresponding to GR Case No. 525 of 2020 pending in the
Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar,
is hereby quashed.
No order as to costs.
All connected Application stand disposed of.
Interim order if any stands vacated.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court
forthwith for necessary compliance.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for,
be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
