Single judge order quashing criminal proceedings under Sections 354/509 IPC read with IT Act in view of amicable settlement between parties invoking inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Proceedings under C.G.R. Case No. 582 of 2012 corresponding to the Gariahat Police Station case were quashed.
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.
4.8.2023 ct.236, sl no.28 sk
C.R.R. 3893 of 2012
CRAN 1/2012, CRAN 2/2023 In the matter of : Suman De
Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Mr. Somopriyo Chowdhury Mr. Arunabha Deb Ms. Ashika Daga
…for the Applicant No. 1.
Mr. Ujjal Ray …for the O.P. No.2.
Mr. Ranabir Roy Chowdhury …for the State.
Affidavit of service filed by the applicant no. 1 is taken on record.
This application under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on 26th November, 2012 challenging the order dated 12th November, 2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas(South) in Case No. C-7291/2012 directing thereby Gariahat Police Station to register F.I.R. under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash the proceeding of Gariahat Police Station Case No. 540/2012 dated 17th November, 2012 under Section 354/509 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 66A/67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000
2
pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas(South) at Alipore.
Heard Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ujjal Ray, learned counsel for the defacto complainant, who happens to be the victim and Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel for the State.
The provision of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act cannot be pressed into service as the same has been stuck off by the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court; before the inclusion of amended provision of Section 67A, this case was registered. So the provision of Section 67A of the Information Technology Act is also not applicable in this case. Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code is an offence compoundable in nature. Since the parties have settled their disputes amicably out of court, I do not find any reason to stand in the way only because of the provision of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable.
When the parties have settled their dispute invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure I am inclined to quash the proceeding in C.G.R. Case No. 582 of 2012 corresponding to Gariahat Police Station Case No. 7291 dated 17th November, 2012
3
pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24- Parganas (South) at Alipore. This revisional application is thus, disposed
of.
Certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to parties upon usual compliance of rules.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings under Sections 354/509 IPC read with IT Act can be quashed upon settlement of dispute.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Suman De
O.P. No.2
State
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
