Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nibir Dasgupta vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 1 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 165 of 2020
With
CRAN 1 of 2023
Nibir Dasgupta
Vs
State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. L. Vishal Kumar,
Mr. Dipanjan Dutt,
Mr. Surojit Saha.
For the State : Ms. Rita Dutta.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vijay Verma,
Mr. Dwaipayan Biswas.
Heard on : 20.03.2023
Judgment on : 01.05.2023
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1.
The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the
proceedings being Garfa P.S. Case No. 314 of 2019 dated 28.07.2019
corresponding to ACGR No. 3478 of 2019 under Sections
509/323/324/114 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas.
2. The petitioner's case is that Ruchira Residency Apartment Owners'
Association (RRAOA) is a registered Apartment ownership Association of
576 Members/Flat owners. There are 576 flats in 8 (Eight) Towers each
comprising 72 flats of uneven measurement and there is a Board of
Managers duly elected in the Annual General Meeting in terms of the
provisions of West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and the Rules
framed thereunder. The present strength of the Board of Managers is 24.
Shri Nibir Dasgupta is the president of the RRAOA.
3. Sri Amitava Chakraborty is the owner of Flat No. 5/2, Tower - 6 and is a
member of the Association.
4. The Association has its own Bye-laws.
5. Yishi Chakraborty, the Opposite Party No.2 has made a complaint to the
police authorities wherein it is stated that Yishi Chakraborty claiming to
be the daughter of Amitava Chakraborty suddenly came to the office
around 7.30 p.m. on 22nd July, 2019 when some Members of the
Association were talking amongst themselves in the office room of the
Association, shouting and accusing the management for existing norms
without mentioning any deficiency or cause with dirty language.
6. Garfa P.S. registered a case under Sections 509/341/323/324/114
I.P.C. against the petitioner and the security guard.
7. The petitioner also lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Garfa
Police Station against the unruly behavior, motivated and fabricated
complaint of Yishi Chakraborty which was treated as FIR, under Sections
506/323/324 IPC.
8. It is submitted that, this case is absolutely out of personal vengeance
against the President of the Association.
9. The allegations brought against the petitioner/applicant herein does not
constitute any offence punishable under Sections
509/341/323/324/114 IPC and as such the impugned proceeding is
thus liable to be quashed.
10. At this stage a joint petition of compromise has been filed being CRAN
1 of 2023.
11. Both the parties have stated that the dispute between them has
been amicably settled and the complainant in this case has no
objection if the proceedings which is in respect of compoundable
offences is quashed.
12. The parties in their Joint Application on Affidavit in CRAN 1 of 2023 have
submitted that in the mean time, an amicable settlement has been
arrived at by and between the parties and as a result whereof, the
complainant is no more willing to proceed any further against petitioner.
13. A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs State of
Punjab and Another (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 303, has cleared
the position in respect of the power of the High Court in quashing a
criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction
(compromise/compounding) in para 61 of the judgment, which is
reproduced here in:-
Para 61. "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."
14. 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).
15. 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 Garfa P.S. Case No. 314 of
2019 dated 28.07.2019 corresponding to ACGR No. 3478 of 2019 under
Sections 509/323/324/114 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the
Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas.
16. From the materials on record, it is clear that dispute in the present case is
a private dispute relating to a housing complex 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 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).
17. 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.
18. CRR 165 of 2020 along with CRAN 1 of 2023 are allowed.
19. The proceedings being Garfa P.S. Case No. 314 of 2019 dated 28.07.2019
corresponding to ACGR No. 3478 of 2019 under Sections
509/323/324/114 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas, is hereby
quashed.
20. There will be no order as to costs.
21. All connected Applications stand disposed of.
22. Interim order if any stands vacated.
23. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
24. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied
expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
