Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 982 (CAL)

Chittaranjan Saha v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2008-10-31

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT:- (1.) THE petitioner moved this criminal revisional application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the charge-sheet under Sections 420/ 406/120b of the Indian Penal Code relating to Narkeldanga Police Station case No. 64 of 2003 on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled out of Court. (2.) IN connection with this criminal revision, a joint compromise petition has also been filed being C. R. A. N. 2621 of 2008. (3.) HEARD Mr. Subir Ganguly, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Souvik Sen, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the de faclo complainant/opposite party No. 2 herein. Inspite of repeated call none appears on behalf of the State. Perused the materials on record as well as the joint compromise petition. (4.) IT appears that the disputes in the instant case arises out of some business transactions and are purely personal in nature without touching any public policy. Moreover, the offences for which the charge-sheet has been submitted both are compoundable. It appears from the joint compromise petition that the matter has been settled out of Court and the complainant has already received back his dues. It further appears from the said compromise petition that the complainant is no longer desirous to proceed with the case as against the present petitioner, who happened to be the accused therein. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/ de facto complainant has also conceded to the same. (5.) IN view of the above, when the parties have been settled their dispute among themselves and the complainant himself is no longer desirous to proceed with the case against the accused , there would be no chance of ultimate conviction and thus no useful purpose will be served by allowing these proceedings to continue any further. Accordingly, I am of the opinion for ends of justice the impugned proceedings be quashed. This revisional application succeeds and stands allowed. The impugned proceeding is quashed.