SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nilanjan Bhattacharya & Ors vs State Of W.B. & Another on 2 March, 2020

1

Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Jay Sengupta

CRR 1044 of 2019
With
CRAN 4077 of 2019

Nilanjan Bhattacharya ors.

Vs.

State of W.B. another

For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajdeep Biswas
: Mr. Saryati Datta

For the State : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld.PP
: Ms. Debjani Sahu

For the Opposite Party : Mr. D. Roy

Heard on: 2nd March, 2020

Judgment on : 2nd March, 2020

The Court:

This is an application praying for quashing of a proceeding in which

a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 406, 498A and 506 of

the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as

follows. During the pendency of the impugned proceeding, a compromised

and settlement has been arrived at between the private parties as regards

all the disputes that had led to the initiation of the impugned proceeding.

A joint compromise application has also been filed by the private parties.

The husband and wife in question had earlier obtained divorced by

mutual concerned.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto-

complainant/victim submits as follows. The disputes between the private

parties have indeed been settled and compromised as would be evident

from the statements contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the
2

joint compromise application. The impugned proceeding ought to be

quashed on the ground of compromise.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the

State would not come in the way if any compromise and settlement was

arrived at between the private parties.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on

behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition, the joint

compromise application and the case diary.

It appears that a settlement and compromise has indeed been

arrived at between the private parties. The couple in question has also

obtained a mutual divorce.

The disputes that had led to the initiation of the impugned

proceeding appear to be substantially of a private in nature.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I quash the

impugned proceeding on the ground of compromise and settlement.

Accordingly, the revisional application and the connected 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

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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