Prabhakar Rao & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 7421 Cal

20.11.2023 Serial no.35 Piya

CRR 1306 of 2019 + IA No.: CRAN No. 1 of 2019 (Old No.: CRAN 3602 of 2019) + IA No.: CRAN No. 2 of 2023

Prabhakar Rao & Ors.

vs.

The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee Ms. Ruchira Manna ......... for the Petitioners

None .......................... for the State

Ms. Sayani Gupta ........ for the O.P. No. 2.

The present revisional application has been preferred

praying for quashing of the proceedings being G.R. Case No.

1890 of 2019, pending before the Court of the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, District North 24

Parganas arising out of MP Case No. 372 of 2019 subsequently

registered as Baranagar Police Station Case No. 179 of 2019

dated April 5, 2019 under Sections 323/506/509/354/120B/34

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is pending before the

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore.

The parties to the revision have now jointly filed

CRAN 2 of 2023 on affidavit praying for disposal of the

present case on the basis of the compromise effected

between the parties.

The applicants state that applicants have mutually and

out of their own will and volition decided and agreed to amicably

settle and compromise the disputes pending between them.

The applicants state that on the basis of such mutual

understanding, the disputes by and between the applicants have

already been amicably settled.

It is further stated that the aggrieved persons have

prayed that the offences in the present case may be compounded

and at present they have no claim or grievance against the

accused persons in view of the compromise between the parties.

A 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).

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 the G.R. Case No. 1890 of 2019, pending

before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate at Barrackpore, District North 24 Parganas arising

out of MP Case No. 372 of 2019 subsequently registered as

Baranagar Police Station Case No. 179 of 2019 dated April 5,

2019 under Sections 323/506/509/354/120B/34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860, which is pending before the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore in respect of the petitioners.

From the materials on record, it is clear that dispute in

the present case is private in nature and the parties have now

resolved their entire dispute by way of a compromise/settlement

on affidavit. The ingredients required to constitute the offences

alleged are also prima facie absent against the petitioners, the

dispute being regarding recovery of loan. The

petitioners/accuseds are working for gain at Tata Motors

Finance United, Kolkata. 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).

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.

The revisional application being CRR 1306 of 2019 is

allowed.

Accordingly, the proceedings being G.R. Case No. 1890 of

2019, pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, District North 24 Parganas

arising out of MP Case No. 372 of 2019 subsequently registered

as Baranagar Police Station Case No. 179 of 2019 dated April 5,

2019 under Sections 323/506/509/354/120B/34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 which is pending before the Additional Chief

Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore, is hereby quashed.

All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for

necessary compliance.

Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for,

be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary

legal formalities.

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)