Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Baishakhi Pyne & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 October, 2018

Author: Shivakant Prasad

Bench: Shivakant Prasad

                                                     1


11.10.2018
.                 C.R.R. No. 3092 of 2018
    rc.                                   with
                                      CRAN No.3046 of 2018




              In the matter of: Baishakhi Pyne & Anr.
                                                         ...Petitioner.
                                   -Versus
                               The State of West Bengal & Anr.
                     Mr. Bhaskar Bandyopadhyay           ...for the petitioner.

                     Mr. Sudipto Ghosh                           ...for the O.P.No.2

                     Mr. Pratick Bose                            ...for the State

This joint application for compromise arises out of revisional application no. 3092 of 2018 whereby the petitioners sought for quashing of the proceeding being Jadavpur Police Station Case No. 134 of 2018 dated April 18, 2018 under Sections 289/338/34 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, District - South 24-Parganas corresponding to ACGR Case No. 1914 of 2018 and also pending before the learned Juvenile Justice Board corresponding to JJB No. 36 of 2018.

The allegation made in the complaint is to the effect that the Opposite Party No. 2 suffered injury due to dog bite when he had gone to the place for delivery of articles. It is alleged that due to negligence act on the part of the petitioners such incident had happened. Now the defecto complainant has entered into a compromise to withdraw the allegation against the petitioners and accordingly to quash the proceeding under reference. 2 Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 and so also the State I do not find any impediment in not considering the compromise petition.

Accordingly, the terms of compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the opposite party no 2, let the proceeding under reference be quashed.

CRR No. 3092 of 2018 is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Shivakant Prasad, J.)