Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kashmira Begum & Ors vs Sayad Mosiar Rahman @ Syed Moshiar ... on 16 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 499 of 2020
With
IA No. : CRAN 1 of 2020
(Old No. CRAN 650 of 2020)
Kashmira Begum & Ors.
Vs
Sayad Mosiar Rahman @ Syed Moshiar Rahman & Anr.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Apurba Kumar Dutta.
For The Opposite Party : Mr. Syed Najmul Hosior.
For the State : Mr. Arijit Ganguly,
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan.
Heard on : 20.12.2022
Judgment on : 16.01.2023
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
The revisional application is preferred praying for quashing of
the proceedings in G.R. 3318/2011 in Connection with Bagnan P.S.
Case No. 553/2011 dated 16.12.2011, pending before the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah.
The said case was started on the basis of an incident which
occurred on 16.12.2011 at about 4.35 pm when Sakib Ahmed was
allegedly assaulted by the petitioner, when he was passing the
petitioner's house with one Mainuddin Sakib and was then treated at
Uluberia Sub-divisional Hospital.
At the time of hearing, a report has been submitted by S.I.
Sudipta Chakraborty of Bagnan Police Station through the Learned
Counsel for the state where in it has been stated that the
matter/dispute has been amicably settled between the parties and the
defacto complainant has no allegations/grievances now against the
petitioners. And the defacto complainant is not intending to
continue the prosecution in the present case in Bagnan P.S. Case
553/11 under Sections 341/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
has submitted a written declaration to that effect and wants to with
draw the same.
3
Considered the said stand of the defacto complainant, materials
on records and the report of the concerned Police Station and also the
submissions of Learned Counsel for the parties.
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
4
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,
5
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
6
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 is a personal dispute between the
parties and is thus private in nature and the parties have now resolved
their entire dispute by way of a compromise/settlement on affidavit and
continuation of this case would put the petitioner to great oppression
and prejudice and extreme injustice could be caused to him by not
setting aside the judgment under revision 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)
(supra). The offences alleged are under Sections 341/323/506/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, which are compoundable in nature.
As such this court is of the view that it would be unfair and
contrary to the interest of justice to not set aside/quash the judgment
under revision, which would tantamount to abuse of process of law in
view of the settlement arrived at between the parties in respect of their
7
dispute and to secure the ends of justice it would be prudent to set
aside/quash the judgment under revision as prayed for.
CRR 499 of 2020 along with CRAN 1 of 2020 (Old CRAN No.
650 of 2020) are accordingly disposed of.
The proceedings in G.R. 3318/2011 in Connection with
Bagnan P.S. Case No. 553/2011 dated 16.12.2011, under Sections
341/323/506/34
Indian Penal Code (compoundable) pending before the
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uluberia, Howrah, is
hereby set aside and quashed.
No order as to cost.
All connected applications stand disposed of.
Interim order if any stands vacated.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court for
information.
Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for,
be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal
formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
