Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 154 (CAL)

Raj Kumar Agarwal v. State of West Bengal

2015-02-23

ASHIM KUMAR ROY

body2015
Judgment Ashim Kumar Roy, J. On the ground of compromise and settlement of dispute by and between the parties, this criminal revision has been moved, seeking quashing of the FIR under sections 406/420/34 IPC, relating to Pradhan Nagar Police Station Case No. 304/2013. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the dispute has been settled by and between the parties out of court and the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 has been sufficiently compensated and consequently she is no longer desirous or willing to proceed against the petitioner in connection with the criminal case arising our of the FIR lodged at her behest. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed. The learned counsel of the petitioner relied upon the following decisions, i) Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 2 C Cr LR (SC) 70; ii) Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 709 ; iii) Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. reported in (2009) 1 C Cr LR (SC) 19; iv) Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 ; v) Manoj Sharma vs. State & Ors. reported in (2010) 4 SCC (SC) 145; vi) Shiji @ Pappu & Ors. Vs. Radhika & Anr. reported in (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 101. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant, the opposite party no. 2 has not disputed such contention of the learned advocate of the petitioner. He admitted since the dispute has been settled by and between the parties, his client, the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2 is not really interested to proceed any further with the impugned FIR and if the same is quashed she has no objection. The learned counsel for the State submitted since parties have settled their dispute our of court and when the de facto complainant is not willing to proceed with the case, there is no remote possibilities of this criminal case instituted by her to reach to its logical conclusion. It is further submitted after this development the prayer of the parties may be allowed. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions and the rulings cited from their side. It is further submitted after this development the prayer of the parties may be allowed. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions and the rulings cited from their side. On earlier occasion the de facto complainant was present in court and was identified by his learned lawyer. She has not disputed the claim of the petitioner that matter has been settled out of court and she is no longer desirous to proceed with the criminal case instituted at her behest. Admittedly, the dispute by and between the parties has been settled out of court and the de facto complainant who initiated the criminal case has now disclosed her clear intention that she is no longer desirous to proceed with that case. In such a situation there would be no remote possibilities the impugned FIR to reach to its logical conclusion. Therefore, keeping this criminal case pending will not serve any useful purpose and will bring out a situation which will be completely an abuse of process of court. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 2 C Cr LR (SC) 70 would be quite relevant in this regard and the observation of the Apex Court is quoted below, 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 technicalities of the law. In the case at hand both the substantive offences for which charge sheet has been submitted are compoundable with the permission of the court. Having regard to above development for ends of justice it deserves that the impugned FIR be quashed. In the result this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned FIR be quashed. So far as the CRAN No. 3080 of 2013, the joint compromise petition is concerned no order is needed to be passed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties at an early date.