Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 267 (CAL)

Aloke Roy v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2009-03-31

PARTHA SAKHA DATTA

body2009
Judgment :- (1) Heard Mr. Bagchi, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mrs. Rupa Bandopadhyay, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parry No. 2 and Mrs. Krishna Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal. (2) The opposite party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. with the Alipurduar Police Station alleging theft of a motor cycle bearing No. WB/70A-3945 by the petitioners-accused persons in the evening of 13.1.2009. On this F.I.R., a case under Sections 341/325/379/506/34 of I.P.C. was registered by the police against the accused persons and upon investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons on 20.2.2009 under the aforesaid Sections of the law. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and process has been issued against some of the accused persons for the purpose of proceeding with the trial of the case. (3) Now the accused persons-petitioners took out this application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. on 23.3.2009 praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground that there has been reached a compromise/settlement by and between the parties and the complainant is not willing to proceed with the case and the dispute arose out of business rivalry between the parties and no property or public policy was involved in the matter. It has been contended in the petition that.no useful purpose will serve in continuing with the proceeding. (4) In furtherance of the said revisional application, both the parties took out an application being CRAN No. 684 of 2009 reiterating the same position and praying for an appropriate Order for termination of the proceeding on the ground of the parties having reached a settlement by and between them subsequent to the submission of the charge-sheet. (5) Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing for the accused petitioners takes me to the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab reported in (2008)2 SCC (Cr) 464 : (2008)2 C Gr LR (SC) 70. wherein Their Lordships in connection with a case under Section 406 of I.P.C. observed that where the dispute was purely a personal one between the two contesting parties and that it arose out of extensive business dealings between them and that there was absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of the allegations made against them, the appropriate course would be to quash the proceeding. (6) My attention has been drawn to paragraph 6 of the judgment which is reproduced below :- "We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." (7) Though B. S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in 2003 SCC (Cr) 848 : 2003 C Cr LR (SC) 498 has been cited this decision does not fit with the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, have been taken to the decision in Jagdish Chanana and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported in JT (2008)4 SC 511 wherein the same principle has been reached. Their Lordships have observed "the fact that a compromise has indeed been recorded is. admitted by all sides and in terms of the compromise the disputes which are purely personal in nature and arise out of commercial transactions, have been settled in terms of the compromise with one of the terms of the compromise being that proceedings pending in Court may be withdrawn or compromised or quashed, as the case may be. In the light of the compromise, it is unlikely that the prosecution will succeed in the matter. We also see that the dispute is a purely personal one and no public policy is involved in the transactions that had been entered into between the parties. To continue with the proceedings, therefore, would be a futile exercise. "Further another decision in Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. reported in JT (2008) 11 SC 674 has been cited in connection with this matter and Their Lordships have observed "In our view, the High Courts refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. "Further another decision in Manoj Sharma v. State and Ors. reported in JT (2008) 11 SC 674 has been cited in connection with this matter and Their Lordships have observed "In our view, the High Courts refusal to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the criminal proceedings cannot be supported. The First Information Report, which had been lodged by the complainant indicates a dispute between the complainant and the accused which is of a private nature. It is no doubt true that the First Information Report was the basis of the investigation by the Police authorities, but the dispute between the parties remained one of a personal nature. Once the complainant decided not to pursue the matter further, the High Court could have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter. We do not suggest that while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court could not have refused to quash the First Information Report, but what we do say is that the matter could have been considered by the High Court with greater pragmatism in the facts of the case. As we have indicated hereinbefore, the exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. of Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary to be exercised in the facts of each case." (8) Now in the context of the decisions of the Supreme Court, an appropriate order may be passed having regard to tho fact that both the parties who are present today through Their learned lawyers prays for quashing of the proceeding on the ground that the case has been compromised by and between them. (9) In the circumstances, the application is disposed of with the order that the criminal proceeding being Alipurduar P.S. Case No. 28/09 dated 13.1.2009 under Sections 341/325/379/506/34 of I.P.C. is quashed. The accused persons shall stand discharged from bail bond if they are on bail. (10) The connected application being CRAN No. 684 of 2009 also stands disposed of accordingly.