The Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings for Sections 313, 323, 498A, and 506 IPC of the Indian Penal Code founded on a dispute between private parties, accepting the validity of a mutual settlement.
Impugned criminal proceedings under G.R. No. 4751 of 2017 were quashed on ground of compromise and settlement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta
CRR 1481 of 2020
with
CRAN 1 of 2020
Ravi Khaitan & ors. Vs.
State of W.B. & another
For the Petitioners : Ms. Anjana Banerjee : Mr. Pradeep Pandey For the State : Mr. Madhusudan Sur, Ld.APP : Mr. Manoranjan Mahata For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sujoy Sarkar
Heard on: 4th December, 2020
Judgment on : 4th December, 2020
The Court :
This is an application for quashing of a proceeding in which a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 313, 323, 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. At the intervention of common relations
2
and family friends, a compromise and settlement was arrived at between the accused and the victim/defacto-complainant of all disputes that had led to the initiation of the impugned proceeding. A joint compromise application has also been filed in this regard.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defactocomplainant/victim submits as follows. A compromise and settlement has indeed been arrived at between the private parties and a joint compromise application has also been filed. An application for mutual divorce that has been filed before the learned appropriate forum, which is still pending.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State refers to a certificate issued by a hospital as appended at page 23 of the case diary and submits that the victim had suffered missed abortion and was treated at a hospital. As such, no case is made out under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that State would not come in the way if a settlement and compromise is arrived at between the private parties.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the State and the victim/opposite party no.2 and have perused the revision petition and the case diary.
3
It appears that a settlement and compromise has indeed been arrived at between the private parties of the disputes that had led to the initiation of the present proceeding.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I quash the impugned proceeding in G.R. No. 4751 of 2017 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas on the ground of compromise and settlement.
With these observations, the revisional application and the connection application are disposed of.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Jay Sengupta,J.)
ssi
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 313, 323, 498A, and 506 IPC should be quashed in view of a compromise between private parties.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravi Khaitan & ors.
State of W.B.
Another
Jay Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
