Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re : Mozafar Hossain Alias Kajal vs Madanlal) To Convince This Court By ... on 8 September, 2016
Author: Indrajit Chatterjee
Bench: Indrajit Chatterjee
1 08.09.2016
item no.14 aks C.R.R. 552 of 2015 With C.R.A.N. 1797 of 2016 In re : Mozafar Hossain alias Kajal .. petitioner.
Md. Mokaram Hossain Mr. Salauddin Ahamed ... for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamakshya Prasad Mukhopadhyay .. for the opposite party no. 2.
Mr. Ayan Basu ... for the State.
This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the accused/husband has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being Sessions Serial No.17 of 2014 arising out of Beldanga P.S. Case No. 607 of 2012 dated 30.10.2012 under Sections 376/511/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad at Berhampore on the ground that the matter has been settled in between him and the prosecutrix who is residing with him as his wife peacefully and the prosecutrix has delivered one child.
I have heard Mr. Hossain, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also Mr. Mukhopadhyay, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 being the prosecutrix and Mr. Basu, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State. The fact remains that already charge sheet has been submitted in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 376/511/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance has already been taken in respect of the said charge sheet and the said proceeding is now pending before the learned Sessions Judge for trial. It is needless to say that all these sections are not compoundable as per the list appended to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2
Mr. Hossian, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that further proceeding of the aforesaid sessions case will be abuse of process of the court as the matter has been ended in compromise.
In counter to this, Mr. Basu, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State submitted by taking me to the decision of the Apex Court as reported in (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 287 (State of M.P Vs. Madanlal) to convince this court by taking me to paragraph 16 of the judgement wherein the Apex Court held "..... We would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of. These are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple. These are offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation. And reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life. No one would allow it to be extinguished. When a human frame is defiled, the "purest treasure", is lost...."
In view of this clear and specific observations of the Apex Court, I cannot quash the proceeding on the ground of compromise alone.
Thus, this application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is disposed of on contest being not maintainable.
I direct the learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad at Berhampore to see that the matter is disposed of preferably within three months from the communication of this order and he may take recourse of Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to dispose of the matter early.
The application being C.R.A.N. 1797 of 2016 is also disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the learned Sessions Judge, Murshidabad at Berhampore by Speed Post at the cost of the department for early action in this regard.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking expeditiously.
(Indrajit Chatterjee, J.) 3