JUDGMENT
Sadhan Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This revisional application has been preferred under Sections 397, 401 and 482 of the Cr.PC praying for quashing of the proceeding in connection with Case No. C- 5914 of 2004 pending before the Court of 9th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.
2. Case of the petitioners is that the O.P. filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore being Case No. C-5914 of 2004 alleging commission of offence by the accused/petitioners punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. Subsequently the case was transferred to the file of the ld. 9th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore for disposal.
3. The petitioners preferred an application under Section 482 of the Cr.PC before the Court praying for quashing of the criminal proceeding and the said revisional application was numbered as CRR No. 436 of 2005. At the instance of the petitioner No. 1, another case was filed against the O.P. and it was pending in the Court of ld. 14th Metropolitan Magistrate. Against the continuation of the said proceeding the O.P. preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.PC before this Court praying for quashing of the said criminal proceeding and the revisional application was numbered as CRR No. 1342 of 2005. At the instance of the petitioner No. 1, another case was filed against the O.P. and it was pending in the Court of ld. 9th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. Against the continuation of the said proceeding the O.P. preferred an application under Section 482 Cr. PC before this Court praying for quashing of the said criminal proceeding and the revisional application was numbered as CRR No. 1342 of 2005. During the pendency of the said revisional application both the parties arrived at an amicable settlement amongst themselves and decided not to continue with the different proceedings initiated in different forums against each other.
4. At the instance of both the petitioner and the O.P., both the CRR No. 436 of 2005 and CRR No. 1342 of 2005 came up for hearing on 5.1.2006 before this Court and both the revisional applications were dismissed for non-prosecution. The revisional applications were dismissed for non-prosecution solely on the basis that there was an amicable settlement in between the parties.
5. However, on 5.5.2006 case No. C-5914 of 2004 came up for hearing before the ld. Magistrate at Alipore. The accused/petitioners were not present on that day, although they were represented through their lawyer. The Counsel for the O.P./complainant was present and he filed a petition informing the Court that there was an amicable settlement in between the parties and in view of that the complainant did not want to proceed with the said proceeding. However, the ld. Magistrate was pleased to direct the petitioners to appear in person on the next date and at the same time did not pass any order regarding the fate of the impugned proceeding.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with by, the continuance of the impugned proceeding in the Court of the ld. 9th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore and against the impugned order dated 5.5.2006 this revisional application has been preferred. It has been contended by ld. Advocates for both the sides that since the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement amongst themselves, there cannot be any justification whatsoever for allowing the said criminal proceeding to continue. Consequently, they have prayed for setting aside the order in question and for quashing of the said proceeding.
7. I have considered the submissions of the ld. Advocates for both the sides. There is no dispute that at the instance of the complainant/O.P. a criminal case under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the accused persons. That case was pending in the Court of the ld. 9th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore for disposal. According to the parties they have arrived at an amicable settlement in between themselves and they do not like to proceed with the case any further. It appears from the copy of the order, as passed in the revisional application, which were filed in connection with this case as well as in connection with another case as pending in between the parties, that those revisional applications were allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution as the parties arrived at a settlement in between themselves. So the fact remains that the complainant of this case and the complainant of another case was not willing to proceed with the matter any further. In this respect a petition was filed before the ld. Magistrate by both the parties praying for dismissing the complaint as the parties have compounded the matter outside the Court. It may be pointed out here that the offences for which the said criminal case was started were not compoundable as per provisions of Section 320 of the Cr. PC. At the same time, it is expected that the ld. Magistrate will pass an appropriate order in respect of the said petition. But it appears from the order dated 5.5.2006 that the ld. Magistrate did not pass any order on the said petition and directed the appearance of the accused persons on the next date. The order, as passed by the ld. Magistrate in this respect, appears to me to be not proper. It was his duty to pass an appropriate order in respect of the said petition either to allow the same or to reject it as per provisions of law. In any event, he cannot keep the matter pending in this way.
8. Be that as it may, let us now consider the main aspect which is involved so far as this revisional application is concerned. I have already pointed out that the case was started at the instance of the complainant against the accused persons. It appears that before the High Court, the complainant expressed his desire to compound the case with the accused persons and in fact, a petition to that effect was also filed before the ld. Magistrate by both the parties. So the fact remains that there is now no dispute in between the parties since they have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. Simply, it appears that as there is no provision for compounding the offence in question before the ld. Magistrate, so no order to that effect could be passed. But if only for the reason the criminal proceeding is allowed to be continued in spite of the fact that the complainant was not willing to continue with the said proceeding due to the settlement arrived at in between the parties, then it will be nothing but sheer wastage of time of the Court and resulting in miscarriage of justice. Undoubtedly, the offences are non-compoundable. But that does not mean that although the parties are unwilling to continue with the proceeding, so the ld. Magistrate should be directed to continue with the case by way of recording evidence of parties. If that is done, then there cannot be any doubt that it will be an abuse of the process of the Court. The parties had approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr. PC praying for passing an appropriate order of quashing of the case in question. It is the settled position that the High Court has wide power under Section 482 Cr. PC to pass any order in order to prevent abuse of process of the Court and in order to prevent miscarriage of justice. In this respect, the ld. Advocates for the parties cited decisions reported in 2004 C Cr. LR (Cal) page 806 (Gora Chand Mukherjee and Anr. v. Gautam Bandopadhyay and Anr.); LF-RCR (Criminal) page 1 (K.U. Ettoop and Anr. v. M.K. Kunhikannan and Anr.) and 2003 C Cr. LR (SC) page 2028 (B.J. Joshi v. State of Haryana). In all these cases similar situations were considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by the other High Courts.
9. In the decision reported in 2003 C Cr. LR page 2028 (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that when parties have settled the dispute in between themselves then it would be proper to quash the proceeding, though the offences are non-compoundable in nature.
10. In the decisions reported in 2004 C Cr. LR (Cal) page 806, the ld. Single Judge of this Court has observed that the High Court in exercise of its inherent power can quash an FIR or complaint where the dispute has been settled between the parties, although offences are non-compoundable, and Section 320, Criminal Procedure Code does not limit or affect the powers of the High Court as provided under Section 482 Cr.PC.
11. I fully agree with this observation of the ld. Single Judge of this Court. So from those decisions it is clear that even if an offence is non-compoundable as per Section 320 of the Cr.PC that cannot be a bar in an appropriate case, for the High Court to quash a proceeding if the parties have compounded their dispute amongst themselves in the meantime. I have already pointed out that the dispute in between the parties have been amicably settled outside the Court and to my mind no purpose will be served in allowing the continuance of the said criminal proceeding before the Court below. In order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and miscarriage of justice, I think that it is a fit case where the prayer for quashing should be allowed and the impugned order as passed by the ld. Magistrate should be set aside.
12. In the result, the revisional application is allowed on contest. The order dated 5.5.2006 as passed by the ld. Magistrate is set aside and the proceeding being C-case No. 5914 of 2004 is quashed. The accused persons are discharged. The C.R.A.N. No. 1254 of 2006 also stands disposed of.
13. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below at once for information and taking necessary action.
14. Xerox certified copy, if applied for, may be handed over to the parties on urgent basis.