AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madhumati Mitra, J
This is an application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The petitioners have approached before this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 2065 of 2014 arising out of Tangra P.S. Case No. 130 of 2014 dated 30.06.2014 Under Sections 120B/406/420/467/468/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Sealdah.
The petitioners have also made prayers for quashing of the orders passed in connection with that proceedings.
In their application for quashing of the proceedings, the petitioners have taken various grounds but while making the submission for quashing of the criminal proceedings, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has confined his submission only to the consent terms arrived at by the parties and filed before one of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in G.A. No.2848 of 2012 corresponding to C.S. No. 344 of 2012.
In support of his contention Learned Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to Annexure 'C' at Page 28 of the present application for quashing of the criminal proceedings. Annexure 'C' is the copy of the order dated August 1, 2014, passed in connection with G.A. No.2848 of 2012, corresponding to C.S. No. 344 of 2012.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners has forcefully submitted that the parties came to a amicable settlement that all the disputes between them including the disputes pending in other forum as recorded in the consent terms be referred to the Arbitration and they selected sole Arbitrator, Mr. S.K. Kapoor, senior advocate for settlement of the dispute between them amicably.
He has also drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure 'P' at Page 19 to Page 27 and forcefully submitted that the several criminal proceedings including the criminal proceedings arising out of Tangra P.S. Case No.130 of 2014 pending against the petitioners are also part of the said consent terms arrived at by the parties.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the several provisions contained in Sections 41, 42 and 43 of the Evidence Act and various decisions Hon'ble Apex Court.
On the other hand learned Counsel for the opposite party has also relied on the order as referred to by learned Counsel for the petitioners.
He has pointed out that the disputes between the parties have not yet been settled in terms of the consent terms. According to his contention the parties came to the settlement that all the disputes between them would be referred to the arbitration for settlement.
He has also cited the same provisions of the Evidence Act as referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and submitted that none of the provisions is applicable to the present facts as the disputes between the parties have not been finally disposed of by the consent terms and the disputes are pending before the Arbitration for adjudication.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
I have also carefully considered the provisions as referred to by them and the decisions so cited at Bar.
From the order dated August 1, 2014 passed in G.A. No. 2848 of 2012 corresponding to C.S. No. 344 of 2012, it appears that the parties have agreed that all disputes between them including the disputes pending in other forum as recorded in the consent terms be referred to the arbitration of Mr. S.K. Kapoor, senior Advocate. Consent terms was drawn up and signed, by the Learned Advocates representing the parties. In the second part of the said order it was mentioned that in view of such agreement between the parties as reflected in consent terms. C.S. No. 344 of 2012 and all applications pending therein including G.A. No. 2848 are disposed of by referring the disputes between the parties to the arbitration of the agreed arbitrator.
If one goes through the order dated August 1, 2014 it would appear to him that the parties came to the settlement that all the disputes between them including the disputes pending in other fora as recorded in the consent terms would be referred to the arbitration.
The disputes between the parties have been referred to the arbitrator for settlement in terms of consent order. That means disputes have not been settled by consent terms.
This does not mean that the disputes between the parties have been settled by consent terms. To refer a dispute for settlement to arbitration is quite different from settlement of the disputes between the parties by consent order.
I do not find force in the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the criminal proceedings between the parties arising out of Tangra P.S. Case No.130 of 2014 are not maintainable in terms of Consent order.
In view of above, I do not find any merit to quash the criminal proceedings as prayed for by the petitioners on the ground that the disputes between the parties have been settled in terms of the consent term.
As a result the revisional application is devoid of merit and stands dismissed.
Urgent photostate certified copy of this order if applied, be supplied to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.