SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arijit Sarkar & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 March, 2019

1

11.03.2019

Item No.29
Ct.No.30
dc.

C.R.R. 4263 of 2017
with
C.R.A.N. 489 of 2019

Arijit Sarkar Ors.

Versus
The State of West Bengal Anr.

Mr. Somopriyo Chaudhury,
Mr. Rajiv Lochan Chakraborty,
Mr. Debapratim Guha,
Mr. Priyanjit Kundu … For the Petitioners.

Ms. Faria Hossain … For the State.

Mr. Sukanta Das … For the Opposite Party No.2.

Learned advocate for the petitioners seeks leave to correct the

date of the P.S. case number in the cause title of the C.R.A.N.

application.

Leave sought for is granted.

Let the correction be made here and now.

By the instant application the petitioners being the husband,

parents-in-law and brother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 have

assailed the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in G.R. Case No.

2092 of 2010 arising out of Barasat P.S. Case No. 1014 of 2010

dated 22.05.2010 under sections 498A/406/420/380/120B/34 of

the Indian Penal Code whereby a petition filed on behalf of the
2

petitioners praying for their discharge from the abovementioned case

was rejected on contest. Petitioners have also sought for quashing of

the proceeding of the abovementioned case.

During the pendency of this application parties have filed a

joint petition being C.R.A.N. 489 of 2019 praying for quashing of the

proceeding of G.R. Case No. 2092 of 2010 on the ground that the

dispute has been amicably resolved between the petitioners and the

opposite party no.2/defacto complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

matrimonial dispute between the petitioner no.1 and opposite party

no.2 has been settled out of court and a suit for divorce being Mat

Suit No. 132 of 2012 filed by the petitioner no.1 which the opposite

party no.2 did not contest has been decreed. It is canvassed that

since the dispute between the parties has been settled out of court,

continuance of the impugned proceeding will not serve any purpose.

In support of such submission reference has been made to the case

of B.S. Joshi and Others Versus State of Haryana and Another reported

in 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 848. Reliance has also been placed

on a judgement of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Atish Agarwala and Others Versus State of West Bengal and Another

reported in 2008 (4) CHN 394.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.1/State

submits that the matter may be disposed of since the dispute
3

between the parties has been amicably settled and the opposite party

no.2 does not wish to proceed with the abovementioned case any

further. It is contended that a written declaration has been given by

the opposite party no.2/defacto complainant to this effect which is

submitted by the I/C Barasat PS.

Let the letter dated 25.02.2019 addressed to the Ld. Govt.

Pleader, High Court, Calcutta along with enclosures be kept on

record.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2/defacto

complainant submits that the matter may be disposed of since the

dispute has been amicably resolved between the parties.

It appears that the present petitioners and the opposite party

no.2/defacto complainant have jointly filed an application being

C.R.A.N. 489 of 2019 for effecting compromise between the parties. It

is evident that the dispute and differences between the parties have

been amicably resolved and the defacto complainant does not wish to

proceed with the abovementioned G.R. case any further. Considering

the aforesaid aspect and in view of the decisions referred as well as

the fact that the dispute is personal in nature arising out of

matrimonial differences, not affecting public policy or public interest,

continuance of the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 2092 of 2010 will not

serve any useful purpose. It would therefore be expedient in the
4

interest of justice to allow the application being C.R.A.N. 489 of

2019.

For the reasons aforestated, the application being C.R.A.N. 489

of 2019 is allowed and the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 2092 of 2010

is quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.

The application being C.R.R. 4263 of 2017 is thus disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

given to the applicant upon compliance of requisite formalities.

( ASHA ARORA, J. )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation