The proceedings relating to Section 498(a) quashed in view of compromise and settlement: The High Court of Calcutta
In view of the landmark judgement provided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab &amp; Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, the matter between husband and wife relating to Section 498(a) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was arbitrarily solved through compromise and settlement. The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta through the single bench led by Mr. Justice Jay Sengupta in the case of Sujit Kumar Ghosh &amp; Ors. v. State of West Bengal &amp; Anr(CRR/1001/2017). The facts of the case are that the petitioners are the husband and the in-laws of the defacto complainant-opposite party. During the pendency of the proceeding, after talking with their common friends and family members, a compromise and settlement had been reached between the accused and the de facto complainant that had led to the initiation of Section 498(a). The couple has now decided to stay strong and lead a happy conjugal life. The learned counsel on behalf of the defacto complainant-wife submitted the same as of the petitioners that a compromise had been reached between the private parties of all the disputes which had let to the filing of the First Information Report. The counsel on behalf of the state said that the state would not come in the way if a compromise and settlement was arrived in between the private parties. The court in view of the decision of Gian Singh, quashed the proceeding as the husband and wife have decided to bury the hatchet and stay together. The High Court of Calcutta, after taking notice that a settlement and compromise has indeed arrived between the accused and the de facto complainant of all disputes that had led together to the initiation of criminal proceedings. The court directed “I quash the impugned proceeding on the ground of compromise and settlement arrived at between the private parties. Accordingly, the revisional application and the connected application are disposed of.”
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Appellate Side) CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Pronounced on: 01.10. 2021 WPA 77920 With CAN 1 OF 2020 Amiya Sarkar ........Petitioner The State of West Bengal & Ors. ........Respondents Through: Mr. Uday Chandra Jha and Ms. Maheshwari Sharma Advocatses present through VC Vs Through: Mr. Debaki Nandan Maiti Advocate ... for the respondent Nos. 4 9 Mr. Kallol Basu and Mr. Suman Banerjee Advocates ….for the private respondent Nos. 12 13 Coram: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL CHIEF JUSTICETHE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ Rajarshi Bharadwaj J. 1. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seats of MDS course are being distributed to the persons who are adopting corrupt practices and are involved in fraudulent activities denying those seats to the eligible and deserving candidates. The petitioner also contends that respondent No. 4 being 2 WPA 77920 the State University was aware of the fact that the applicants before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal being private respondents herein were not entitled to the benefits. Moreover it was the duty of the respondent authorities to direct the private respondents to vacate their seats being occupied by them illegally and fraudulently. Also that the respondent no.2 was under obligation of law to direct the proceeding to be initiated against the private respondents and also against those who had assisted the private respondent in closing their eyes against the illegal activities of the private respondent for some extraneous conditions. Furthermore it was the duty on part of respondent no. 2 to act in terms of the provision of Rule 3(1)(i) of the West Bengal Dental Service Rules 2013 which clearly provides for the criteria to fill up seats for admission in MDS as an ‘in service’ candidate under the Trainee Reserve quota and the same cannot be allowed to be violated by the respondent authorities. 2. The contention that it is a well principled rule of law that fraud vitiates everything and no right and or equity is created by practice of fraud is completely true. It cannot be denied that it is the duty of the state authorities to be loyal honest fair and impartial to the public at large and not to a person or persons who by way of his connections with the higher authorities adopt corrupt and fraud practices. 3. But this public interest litigation has been moved before this Court on the September 18 2020 i.e. after three years since the private respondent began his MDS course i.e. in April 18 2017. Therefore due to this lapse of time it would not be equitable to interfere with the private respondent’s completion of MDS course. 4. For the foregoing reasons the writ petition is dismissed. All pending application are also accordingly disposed of. 3 WPA 77920 5. Given the circumstances of this case the parties will bear their own costs. CHIEF JUSTICE(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ) JUDGE 01 .10.2021 PA