Raj Kumar Agarwal vs The State of West Bengal and Others

Ashim Kumar Roy, J—The quashing of a charge-sheet under section 468/471/420 I.P.C. arising out of Pradhannagar Police Station case No. 445/2013 has been sought for on the ground the matter has been settled and compromised by and between the parties.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Debasish Roy submitted that already the parties have settled their dispute and the loses suffered by the de facto complainant has been adequately compensated, therefore, the de facto complainant of the case was no more willing to proceed with the prosecution of the petitioner and in this regard a joint compromise competition has been filed. It is further submitted consequently there will be no ultimate chance of conviction of the petitioner in the case and thus the impugned charge-sheet be quashed. Mr. Roy in support of this submissions relied on the following decisions,

i) Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969 : (2008) CriLJ 2243 : (2008) 4 SCALE 159 : (2008) 4 SCC 582 : (2008) 1 UJ 549 : (2008) AIRSCW 2287 : (2008) 2 Supreme 750 ;

ii) Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Others Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others, AIR 1988 SC 709 : (1988) CriLJ 853 : (1988) 1 Crimes 780 : (1988) 1 JT 279 : (1988) 1 SCALE 261 : (1988) 1 SCC 692 : (1988) 2 SCR 930 ;

iii) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, AIR 2009 SC 428 : (2008) CLT 1226 : (2008) 9 JT 192 : (2008) 11 SCALE 379 : (2008) 9 SCC 677 ;

iv) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 9 JT 457 : (2012) 9 JT 426 : (2012) 9 SCALE 257 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 ;

v) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others, (2008) 11 JT 674 ;

vi) Shiji @ Pappu and Others Vs. Radhika and Another, AIR 2012 SC 499 : (2012) CriLJ 840 : (2012) 1 JCC 101 : (2011) 13 JT 180 : (2012) 167 PLR 108 : (2012) 1 RCR(Criminal) 9 : (2011) 12 SCALE 588 : (2012) AIRSCW 445 .

Mr. Sourav Chatterjee the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant has conceded to such submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submitted since the dispute having settled out of court his client the de facto complainant of the case is no more desirous to proceed with the impugned prosecution against the petitioner and if the same be quashed, she has no objection.

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted since the parties have settled their dispute out of court, there is no likelihood of impugned prosecution to culminate to the end result. He further submitted that if the de facto complainant is not really desirous to prosecute the petitioner, the State has nothing to do and keeping this prosecution alive and would only amount to misuse of the process of court. He further submitted in this background if the impugned charge-sheet is quashed.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions and the rulings cited from their side.

It is an admitted position the dispute by and between the parties has been settled out of court and the de facto complainant at whose behest the impugned criminal case has been initiated is now no longer desirous to press the same any further. In such a situation, there is no remote possibilities so far as the impugned proceeding is concerned to reach to its logical conclusion. Now, keeping this impugned proceeding survives any further would brings out a situation which will amount to complete abuse of process of court and will not be conducive in the interest of justice. In this regard, an observation of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1969 : (2008) CriLJ 2243 : (2008) 4 SCALE 159 : (2008) 4 SCC 582 : (2008) 1 UJ 549 : (2008) AIRSCW 2287 : (2008) 2 Supreme 750 in my opinion would be quite relevant and thus 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.

This is not a case where the accused charge sheeted and the de facto complainant have together approached this court seeking an order for compounding of the offence as the dispute by and between them has been settled. On the other hand, the accused has approached this court seeking quashing of the charge sheet on the ground of compromise and it is the case of the de facto complainant since they have settled their dispute out of court she has no intention to proceed any further with the criminal case commenced at her behest and therefore, there is no remote possibilities of the case being reached to its logical conclusion.

Having regard to above, the impugned proceeding stands quashed.

This decision, must not be deemed to be a precedence and prayer for quashing is allowed considering the peculiar facts of the case.

So far as the CRAN, 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.