Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Snehanshu Sinha & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 5 August, 2025
05.08.2025
Item no. 378
Ct. No. 29
BD. CRR 2957 of 2023
Snehanshu Sinha & Ors.
-vs-
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
Mrs. Paulomita Mukherjee
Ms. Moumita Pandit
Ms. Ritashree Banerjee
Mr. Bhaskar Mondal … for petitioners.
Mr. Rudradipta Nandy
Mrs. Sujata Das ... for the State
This is an application wherein the petitioners have
prayed for quashing of proceeding being GR Case No.
674 of 2022 arising out of Bolpur Police Station Case No.
195 of 2022 dated 30th June, 2022 under sections
420/406/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Private opposite party is not represented.
The petitioner submits that they are absolutely
innocent and they have been falsely implicated on the
basis of false and baseless allegations. They are in no
way connected with the alleged offence and they have
been unnecessarily dragged into criminal proceeding. In
fact defacto complainant has lodged the complaint out of
grudge, jealous and in order to fulfill his personal
vendetta. It is further submitted that the opposite party
no. 2 has been residing at Bankura with his parents
since a long time and his mother or he himself never ever
came to Bolpur or Raipur for any purpose and they never
2
visited their ancestral home for any purpose in the last
thirty years. Petitioner no. 1 being the youngest son of
defacto complainant’s maternal grandparents has been
residing with his family at Bolpur for his work purpose.
Before retirement he had been abroad.
The petitioners submits that they are all senior
citizens and retired from service. The petitioners’ mother
Renuka Singha expired on 22.10.1991 after executing
her last Will and Testament dated 23-05-1984 whereby
she had expressed her will with regard to distribution of
her property. The petitioners sisters namely Sulekha
Ghosh and Maniprabha Sinha executed Na Dabi Patra
on 04.11.1991 which was duly registered in favour of the
petitioners admitting and honouring the said Will. The
petitioners had filed a probate case to prove the last Will
of their mother in the year 2021. The same became
contentious due to objection raised. In fact the opposite
party no. 2 along with others after demise of their mother
defying the law have been trying to sell family property in
and around Bolpur and make unlawful gain out of it,
claiming right title interest over the same.
Petitioners further contention is that the dispute is
purely civil dispute among the family members and the
petitioners have been falsely entangled with the case.
However, there was an agreement in course of hearing of
the application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail
granted to petitioners and it appears from the bail order
3
dated 8th February, 2023 that during course of hearing
before this High Court in CRM (DB) 3228 of 2022, the
opposite parties agreed in Court that if the petitioners
herein pay a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs to the opposite party No.
2 herein he will take steps for withdrawing the police
complaint. It further appears from the said order dated
8th February, 2023 that pursuant to such agreement, the
private opposite parties made over a sum of Rs. 7 lac to
the petitioner which the petitioner acknowledged by
granting receipt. It further appears that thereafter on
29th August, 2023 the defacto complainant Subharthi
Sinha made a prayer before the trial court for withdrawal
of the instant proceeding, stating that the matter has
been amicably settled between the parties and as such
he does not want to proceed further with the proceeding.
It further appears that though the trial court on 29th
August, 2023 had taken notice of the said fact but he
only placed the said petition in the record without
passing order as the instant application being CRR 2957
of 2023 is pending before this High Court who had
stayed the said proceeding.
Mr. Nandy, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the State submits that in view of the amicable
settlement, it appears that the petitioners have paid Rs.
7 lac to the defacto complainant and as such the defacto
complainant has made a prayer for withdrawl before the
court below. However, he submits that the allegation
4
made in the complaint are private dispute and are
compoundable in nature and this High Court has the
power to quash the proceeding invoking jurisdiction
under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
It is evident from record that petitioners herein
have paid Rs. 7 lacs to the defacto-complainant in terms
of settlement arrived at by the parties vide order dated
8th February, 2023. It is also not in dispute that defacto-
complainant has already filed application as reflected
from trial courts order dated 29.8.2023, that defacto-
complainant does not want to proceed further with the
criminal proceeding in view of amicable settlement. It is
also not in dispute that the petitioners and the private
opposite party are related to each other as they are
family members and entangled in property related
dispute among themselves. Record reveals in spite of
service, the private opposite party preferred not to
challenge the aforesaid averments made in the
application.
In Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10
SCC 303, Apex court while dealt with the situations,
where proceeding can be quashed invoking court’s
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. in view of
amicable settlement between the parties held in para-61
as follows:-
“…………..But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing
5for 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 tantamount 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.
In the instant proceeding in view of payment of
agreed amount by the petitioners herein in favour of
private opposite party herein and also in view of prayer
made by the opposite party no. 2 herein before the court
below that he is no longer interested to proceed with the
allegations, and that alleged offences are compoundable
in nature and predominantly civil dispute among family
members, basically over acquisition and/or distribution
6of ancestral property, it would be unfair and contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the criminal
proceeding and if it is allowed to continue it would
definitely tantamount to abuse of process of law despite
settlement.
Accordingly CRR 2957 of 2023 along with
connected application, if any, are allowed.
The impugned proceeding being Bolpur Police
Station Case No. 195 of 2022 dated 30th June, 2022
corresponding to GR Case No. 674 of 2022 presently
pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bolpur, Birbhum is quashed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance
of all requisite formalities.
(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link