Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 208 (CAL)

Bapi Mondal v. State Of West Bengal

2020-02-13

JAY SENGUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application for quashing of a proceeding in which a charge-sheet was submitted under section 498A of the Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner is the accused husband in this case. During the pendency of the proceeding an amicable settlement and compromise has been arrived at between the accused and the de facto complainant/victim of all disputes that had led to the initiation of the impugned proceeding. Accordingly, a joint compromise application has also been filed. In the interest of justice, the present proceeding ought to be quashed on the ground of compromise. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant submits as follows. As would be evident from paragraph 6 of the joint compromise application, a final settlement and compromise has indeed been arrived at between the private parties. As such, the proceeding ought to be quashed forthwith. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State files a report which is taken on record. He submits that the State will not come in the way if any settlement and compromise is arrived at between the private parties as the disputes in question are substantially private in nature. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition and the joint compromise application as also the report filed by the State and the case diary. 6. From the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the de facto complainant and from a reading of paragraph 6 of the joint compromise application it is apparent that a compromise and settlement has indeed been arrived at between the private parties in respect of the disputes that had led to the initiation of the impugned proceeding. 7. The disputes between the private parties appear to be private in nature. As such, in view of the ratio laid down in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab,2010 10 SCC 303 there is no impediment in quashing the proceeding on the ground of compromise and settlement. 8. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I quash the impugned proceeding on the ground of compromise and settlement. 9. The revisional application and the connected application are accordingly disposed of. 10. 8. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I quash the impugned proceeding on the ground of compromise and settlement. 9. The revisional application and the connected application are accordingly disposed of. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon usual undertakings.