ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J. - (1.) THE quashing of a charge -sheet under section 468/471/420 IPC arising out of Pradhannagar Police Station case No. 445/2013 has been sought for on the ground the matter has been settled and compromised by and between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Debasish Roy submitted that already the parties have settled their dispute and the loses suffered by the de facto complainant has been adequately compensated, therefore, the de facto complainant of the case was no more willing to proceed with the prosecution of the petitioner and in this regard a joint compromise competition has been filed. It is further submitted consequently there will be no ultimate chance of conviction of the petitioner in the case and thus the impugned charge -sheet be quashed. Mr. Roy in support of this submissions relied on the following decisions, i) Madan Mohan Abbot vs State of Punjab, 2008 2 CalCriLR 70; ii) Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and Anr. vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Ors, 1988 AIR(SC) 709 iii) Nikhil Merchant vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr, 2009 1 CalCriLR 19; iv) Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and Anr, 2012 10 SCC 303 v) Manoj Sharma vs State and Ors,2010 4 SCC 145; vi) Shiji @ Pappu and Ors. vs Radhika and Anr, 2012 1 SCC(Cri) 101.
(2.) MR . Sourav Chatterjee the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant has conceded to such submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submitted since the dispute having settled out of court his client the de facto complainant of the case is no more desirous to proceed with the impugned prosecution against the petitioner and if the same be quashed, she has no objection.
(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor submitted since the parties have settled their dispute out of court, there is no likelihood of impugned prosecution to culminate to the end result. He further submitted that if the de facto complainant is not really desirous to prosecute the petitioner, the State has nothing to do and keeping this prosecution alive and would only amount to misuse of the process of court. He further submitted in this background if the impugned charge -sheet is quashed. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Considered their respective submissions and the rulings cited from their side. It is an admitted position the dispute by and between the parties has been settled out of court and the de facto complainant at whose behest the impugned criminal case has been initiated is now no longer desirous to press the same any further. In such a situation, there is no remote possibilities so far as the impugned proceeding is concerned to reach to its logical conclusion. Now, keeping this impugned proceeding survives any further would brings out a situation which will amount to complete abuse of process of court and will not be conducive in the interest of justice. In this regard, an observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot vs State of Punjab, 2008 2 CalCriLR 70 in my opinion would be quite relevant and thus quoted below,;