Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Yishi Chakrabarty vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 2 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)
CRR 2392 of 2019
With
CRAN 1 of 2023
Yishi Chakrabarty
Vs
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Vijay Verma,
Mr. Dwaipayan Biswas.
For the State : Ms. Rita Dutta.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. L. Vishal Kumar,
Mr. Dipanjan Dutt,
Mr. Surojit Saha.
Heard on : 20.03.2023
Judgment on : 02.05.2023
2
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1.
The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the
proceeding in connection with Garfa Police Station Case No. 339 of 2019
dated 07.08.2019 under Sections 506/323/324 of the Indian Penal Code
corresponding ACGR No. 3685 of 2019 pending before the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.
2. The petitioner's case is that the father of the petitioner purchased an
apartment of Ruchira Residency Apartment, 369, Purbanchal Kalitala
Road, Kolkata - 700078 and has been residing with his family consisting
of wife and two daughters (one of the daughters being the petitioner
herein).
3. That on 22nd July, 2019, the petitioner detected a leakage in the water
pipe line and apprehending that unless immediate steps be taken to
repair the said leak the entire water tank would be drained. The
petitioner immediately informed the organization of "Urban Clap". But
the security guard did not allow him to enter into the said residency
premises on the plea that after 7.00 P.M. no service man would be
allowed to enter into residency without the order of the president of
owners' association. The petitioner approached the office of the
association but the opposite party no. 2 being accompanied by others in
the office of the association without listening to the petitioner rudely
rebuked and also hurled some slang expression undermining the
petitioner.
4. That the opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint with Garfa Police
Station on 07.08.2019 alleging offences committed by the petitioner
punishable under Section 506/323/324 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The petitioner also lodged a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge, Garfa
Police Station against the unruly behavior, motivated and fabricated
complaint of Yishi Chakrabarty which was treated as FIR, under Sections
506/323/324 IPC.
6. It is submitted that, this case is absolutely out of personal vengeance
against the President of the Association.
7. It is further submitted that the allegations brought against the
petitioner/applicant herein does not constitute any offence punishable
under Sections 506/323/324 IPC and as such the impugned proceeding
is thus liable to be quashed.
8. At this stage a joint petition of compromise has been filed CRAN 1
of 2023.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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."
12. 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).
13. 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 Police Station Case
No. 339 of 2019 dated 07.08.2019 under Sections 506/323/324 of the
Indian Penal Code corresponding ACGR No. 3685 of 2019 pending before
the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.
14. From the materials on record, it is clear that dispute in the present case is
a private dispute relating to residents in 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).
15. 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.
16. CRR 2392 of 2019 along with CRAN 1 of 2023 are allowed.
17. The proceedings being Garfa Police Station Case No. 339 of 2019 dated
07.08.2019 under Sections 506/323/324 of the Indian Penal Code
corresponding ACGR No. 3685 of 2019 pending before the Learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore is hereby quashed.
18. There will be no order as to costs.
19. All connected Applications stand disposed of.
20. Interim order if any stands vacated.
21. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary
compliance.
22. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied
expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)
