1
11.03.2019
Item No.28
Ct.No.30
dc.
C.R.R. 4261 of 2017
with
C.R.A.N. 488 of 2019
Prasenjit 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.
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.
2093 of 2010 arising out of Barasat P.S. Case No. 1015 of 2010
dated 22.05.2010 under sections 498A/406/420/120B/34 of the
Indian Penal Code whereby a petition filed on behalf of the
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. 488 of 2019 praying for quashing of the
2
proceeding of G.R. Case No. 2093 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. 133 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
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.
3
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. 488 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. 2093 of 2010 will not
serve any useful purpose. It would therefore be expedient in the
interest of justice to allow the application being C.R.A.N. 488 of
2019.
For the reasons aforestated, the application being C.R.A.N. 488
of 2019 is allowed and the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 2093 of 2010
is quashed on the basis of compromise between the parties.
The application being C.R.R. 4261 of 2017 is thus disposed of.
4
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
given to the applicant upon compliance of requisite formalities.
( ASHA ARORA, J. )
