Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 104 (CAL)

BISWAJIT CHAKRABORTY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2007-02-19

PRAVENDU NARAYAN SINHA

body2007
( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. ( 2 ) THE appeal being C. R. A. No. 317 of 2003 was preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Siliguri in sessions Trial No. 40/2002 (G. R. Case No. 54/2001) arising out of. Siliguri p. S. Case No. 25 dated 16. 1. 2001. Challenging the same judgment and order the de facto complainant filed a revisional application being C. R. R. No. 2273 of 2003, praying for enhancement of sentence. ( 3 ) BUT now it appears from the submission of Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the appellants in the appeal and Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners in the revision that the matter has been settled out of Court at the intervention of well-wishers and common friends. The de facto complainant/wife and appellant No. 1 Biswajit chakraborty have jointly filed an application before the learned District judge, Darjeeling for decree of divorce on mutual consent, which is now pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Siliguri for necessary order. In terms of the mutual settlement between the parties, both of them have decided to withdraw all the pending cases against each other. In view of such settlement between the husband and wife, the appeal filed by the appellants against order of conviction and sentence should be allowed and the revision filed by the de facto complainant for enhancement of sentence should be treated as not pressed. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing submissions of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the joint affidavit filed by the appellant No. 1 and the de facto complainant. I am of the opinion that to restore peace between the parties in this oase this Court should interfere irtto the matter when the parties have settled their disputes. The appeal should be allowed and the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the appellants should be set aside and at the same time the revision filed by the de facto complainant praying for enhancement of sentence should be treated as dismissed as not pressed. The appeal should be allowed and the sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the appellants should be set aside and at the same time the revision filed by the de facto complainant praying for enhancement of sentence should be treated as dismissed as not pressed. ( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in B. S. Joshi v. State of Hariyana reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 laid down the guidelines in this respect and indicated that in case of genuine settlement between the husband and the wife, the court should not be reluctant to interfere into the matter and should encourage genuine settlement between the husband and the wife. Here I find the dispute was out of their marriage and accordingly, this Court for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law should interfere into such matter. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the fact that the husband and wife has arrived at settlement between them the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Siliguri in Session Trial no. 40/2002 are hereby set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed. On the same analogy, the revisional application filed by the de facto complainant/wife for enhancement of sentence be dismissed as not pressed.