[ad_1]
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Jiten Chowbey vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
C.R.R. 2796 of 2009
With
CRAN 8 of 2025
Jiten Chowbey
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dipankar Dandapath, Adv.
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Ms. Puja Goswami, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Avishek Sinha, Adv.
Heard on : 28.03.2025
Judgment on : 07.05.2025
2
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1.
This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioner challenging the
Impugned Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2009 passed by the
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – II, Sealdah in
Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2009 thereby affirmed the Judgment and
Order of conviction dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah in G.R. Case No. 1144/02 arising out
of Phulbagan Police Station Case No. 91 dated 13.06.2002 sentencing
him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of
Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two
months for commission of offence under Sections 324/34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The brief facts of the case are essential for the purpose of
disposal of this case as under: –
2a. The opposite party no. 2 lodged an FIR with the Officer-in-
Charge, Phulbagan Police Station on 13.06.2006 being Phulbagan
Police Station Case No. 91 dated 13.06.2002 under Sections 324/114
of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner alleging, inter alia,
that on 09.06.2002 at about 11.20 hours, the petitioner and some
others had assaulted the opposite party no. 2 with fists and blows as
3well as attacked him with a razor causing bleeding injury on his
person.
2b. After culmination of investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted the charge sheet and charges were framed against the
petitioner for commission of an offence punishable under Sections
324/34 of the IPC.
2c. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah upon
considering the evidence, perusing the materials on record and
hearing the submissions of the parties, was pleased to deliver
judgment and order of conviction dated 30.12.2008 under Sections
324/34 of the IPC and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid.
2d. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment
and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.12.2008, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court – II, Sealdah being Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2009.
However, upon hearing the appeal, the Learned Judge was pleased to
dismiss the appeal by a judgment and order dated 23.06.2009 and
affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.
2e. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated
23.06.2009, the petitioner filed this Criminal Revisional application.
Hence, this application.
4
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
vehemently argued and submitted that the Learned Trial Court as
well as Learned Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the
evidence on record and without applying judicious mind convicted
the accused person/Petitioner. It was further submitted that the
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the
instant case. Apart from the above submission, learned counsel
further drew attention to this Court that the injured person himself
came forward and reconciled with the petitioner. They have interacted
amicably and the injured person being de-facto complainant has
expressed his desire not to pursue the case any further and does not
wish for the petitioner to be convicted.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party
no. 2/de-facto complainant also conceded the same and further
submitted that the Petitioner is his distant relative and he is the only
bread earner of his family. He earns minimum income as a daily
labour and is responsible for maintaining his family members.
Learned counsel candidly submitted that his client is not willing to
proceed with the case any further and also does not want any
conviction of the petitioner as such he agreed for compromise and
filed joint compromise application with a prayer for quashing the
impugned Judgment and Order arising out of the G.R. Case No.
5
1144/2002 in connection with Phulbagan Police Station Case No. 91
dated 13.06.2002 under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted
that though the sections are not compoundable but it is within the
discretion of the Hon’ble Court to consider such prayer even at the
stage of post-conviction as the alleged offence committed by the
petitioner is of a personal nature and if the de-facto
complainant/injured person himself does not want to proceed with
the case and signed the joint compromise petition without any threat,
coercion and any undue influences. After all, both petitioner and de-
facto complainant are distant relatives and, hence, the compromise
may be accepted in the interest of justice.
6. Heard the submission of the parties and upon perusal of the
judgment and order dated 23.06.2009 passed by the Learned Judge,
it appears that the judgment and order of conviction under Sections
324/34 of the IPC passed by the Learned Trial Court has been
confirmed by the Learned Judge. Be that as it may, both the
Petitioner and de-facto complainant during pendency of this case
arrived at a settlement and jointly filed a compromise application
praying for quashing of the proceeding on the ground of compromise
as they are firstly, distant relatives. Secondly, the Petitioner is a daily
labour and earns minimum daily wages. Being the sole bread earner,
6
he is maintaining his family members, therefore, the de-facto
complainant does not want him to be convicted for their better life
and further wishes a happy and undisrupted life to the Petitioner.
7. Now, the question arises to be answered whether post-
conviction of the petitioner under Sections 324/34 of the IPC can be
quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties and joint
application filed by the parties in exercise of inherent power as
granted under Section 482 of the CrPC?
8. In several cases the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble
High Courts have quashed the proceedings though some of the
offences were found non-compoundable in view of the settlement
arrived at by the parties because after settlement it would be difficult
on the part of prosecution to prove the case and possibility of
conviction became remote and bleak.
9. In addition, this Court also considers the alleged offences are
not heinous offences showing extreme depravity nor are they against
the society and the offences are personal in nature and burying the
disputes and differences would bring peace and harmony between the
parties.
7
10. A Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh
V. State of Punjab and Another1 considered the relevant provisions
of the Code and held as under: –
“61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of
the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or
FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power
given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory
limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with
the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to
secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of any court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR
may be exercised where the offender and the victim
have settled their dispute would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have
due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime.
Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity
or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot
be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the
dispute. Such offences are not private in nature1
(2012) 10 Supreme Court cases 303
8and have a serious impact on society. Similarly,
any compromise between the victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under special
statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the
offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for
any basis for quashing criminal proceedings
involving such offences. But the criminal cases
having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes
of quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership
or such like transactions or the offences arising out
of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family
disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved
their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the
High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if
in its view, because of the compromise between the
offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction
is remote and bleak and continuation of the
criminal case would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice
would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal case despite full and complete settlement
and compromise with the victim. In other words,
the High Court must consider whether it would be
unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to
continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would
9tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the victim and
the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of
justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is
put to an end and if the answer to the above
question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.
(Emphasis supplied)”
11. In Ramgopal & Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh2,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held in paragraph nos. 13,
14 and 15 as under: –
“13. It appears to us those criminal proceedings
involving non-heinous offences or where the offences
are pre-dominantly of a private nature, can be
annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already
been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole
form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying
laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It
goes without saying, that the cases where
compromise is struck post-conviction, the High Court
ought to exercise such discretion with rectitude,
keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the2
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 249
10incident, the fashion in which the compromise has
been arrived at, and with due regard to the nature
and seriousness of the offence, besides the conduct of
the accused, before and after the incidence. The
touchstone for exercising the extra-ordinary power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to secure the
ends of justice. There can be no hard and fast line
constricting the power of the High Court to do
substantial justice. A restrictive construction of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead
to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts
and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to
grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where
heinous offences have been proved against
perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended, as
cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder Singh
& Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.3 and Laxmi
Narayan (Supra).
14. In other words, grave or serious offences or
offences which involve moral turpitude or have a
harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of the
society or involve matters concerning public policy,
cannot be construed betwixt two individuals or
groups only, for such offences have the potential to
impact the society at large. Effacing abominable
offences through quashing process would not only
send a wrong signal to the community but may also3
(2014) 6 SCC 466
11accord an undue benefit to unscrupulous habitual or
professional offenders, who can secure a ‘settlement’
through duress, threats, social boycotts, bribes or
other dubious means. It is well said that “let no guilty
man escape, if it can be avoided.”
15. Given these settled parameters, the order of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh culminating into
Criminal Appeal No. 1489 of 2012, to the extent it
holds that the High Court does not have power to
compound a non-compoundable offence, is in
ignorance of its inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. and is, thus, unsustainable.
(Emphasis Supplied)”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held in paragraph no. 19
of the aforesaid judgment as under:
“19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to
Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely
guided by the compromise between the parties in
respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the
statutory framework, the extra-ordinary power
enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and
bounds of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we
reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to
be exercised carefully in the context of quashing
12criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and
effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii)
Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary
nature of compromise between the accused and the
victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to
and after the occurrence of the purported offence
and/or other relevant considerations.”
13. In the light of the above discussion and guidelines as laid
down in the aforesaid judgments, it clearly reveals that exercise of
inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC
depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case and
no specific category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of
such power, the High Court must carefully consider the nature and
gravity of the offence. Offences that are heinous in nature and
involved mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family
and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not
private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the
offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act
or the offences committed by public servants while working in that
capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences.
13
14. In the present case, the petitioner was convicted under
Sections 324/34 of the IPC by the Learned Trial Court and the same
was further affirmed by the Learned Judge in appeal. The same is
now under consideration of this Court under the revisional
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.
15. Considering the submission made by the parties and in the
light of aforesaid guidelines as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, this Court is of the opinion that the present case, in hand, can
be quashed on the basis of voluntary joint compromise petition filed
by the parties on the following reasons:
Firstly, occurrence involved in this case can be
categorised as purely personal and between the
relatives;
Secondly, criminal proceedings pending before this
court is private in nature;
Thirdly, the nature of injuries suffered by the de-
facto complainant, for which the petitioner has been
convicted is not of such serious in nature that the
14quashing of which would override the public interest
and peace among the society;
Fourthly, the parties on their own volition, without
any coercion or compulsion or undue influence,
willingly and voluntarily have buried their
differences and wish to accord a quietus to their
dispute(s);
Fifthly, the occurrence took place way back in the
years 2002. There is nothing on record to show that
since then, any untoward incident transpired
between the parties;
Sixthly, the cause of administration of criminal
justice system would remain un-effected on
acceptance of the amicable settlement between the
parties and/or resultant acquittal of the Appellant;
more so looking at their intention;
15
Seventhly, at the time of commission of alleged
offence the petitioner was young and he had no
antecedent of criminal activities;
Eighthly, the petitioner after being convicted has
already suffered mental pain and agony due to
prolonged trial as well as pendency of the appeal and
revision for more than two decades.
Lastly, Criminal Jurisprudence reformatory in
nature and aims to bring peace among family,
relatives and society. Continuation of criminal
proceedings despite voluntary compromise may lead
to injustice and ill will.
16. Accordingly, CRR 2796 of 2009 is, thus, allowed.
Connected application being CRAN 8 of 2025 is also, thus, disposed
of.
17. Consequentially, this Court is of considered view that it
would be appropriate to exercise inherent power under Section 482 of
the CrPC and quash the criminal proceedings being Phulbagan Police
Station Case No. 91 dated 13.06.2002 corresponding to G.R. Case
16
No. 1144/02 for securing ends of justice. The judgments and orders
passed by the Learned Trial Court as well as Learned Appellate Court
are hereby set aside on the basis of joint compromise application filed
by the parties voluntarily. Resultantly, the petitioner shall be deemed
to have been acquitted from the charged offences for all intents and
purposes.
18. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Learned Trial
Court for information.
19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
20. Case Diary, if any, be returned to the learned counsel for the
State.
21. Parties shall act on the server copies of this Judgment
uploaded on the official website of this Court.
22. Urgent photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied
for, is to be given as expeditiously to the parties on compliance of all
legal formalities.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J)
P. Adak (P.A.)
[ad_2]
Source link