Rajeeb Kothari vs. The State Of West Bengal
AI Summary
In a landmark criminal appeal, the Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings against Rajeeb Kothari in a case involving charges of criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy, after the parties settled their disputes outside court. This decision underscores the judiciary's recognition of settlement as a valid ground for terminating criminal proceedings when the underlying dispute is resolved.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
Rajeeb Kothari was chargesheeted under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC in GR Case No. 634 of 2001 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Kolkata. The case arose from a dispute between Kothari and Soumendranath Lahiri. The parties subsequently settled their disputes outside of court. Kothari filed a petition in the High Court of Calcutta (CRR No. 3662/2015) seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction by order dated 27-04-2018. Kothari then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court (SLP No. 6082/2018) on 23-07-2018. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the matter on 10-08-2018 and 16-11-2018. Despite service of notice, the second respondent (de facto complainant) did not appear. The State argued that the trial was in progress. The Supreme Court found that the parties had settled their disputes and quashed the proceedings.
Timeline of Events
GR Case No. 634 of 2001 filed against Rajeeb Kothari for criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal conspiracy
CRR No. 3662/2015 filed in High Court of Calcutta seeking quashing of criminal proceedings
High Court of Calcutta declined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and dismissed the petition
Special Leave Petition No. 6082/2018 filed in Supreme Court of India
First hearing in Supreme Court; notice issued; stay of operation and implementation of impugned judgment granted
Final hearing in Supreme Court; leave granted; appeal allowed; proceedings quashed
Key Factual Findings
The appellant was chargesheeted under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
The parties have settled their disputes outside of court
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
Despite service of notice, the second respondent (de facto complainant) did not appear
Source: Current Court Finding
The trial was in progress at the time of the Supreme Court hearing
Source: Recited from Respondent Pleading
The Supreme Court had granted stay of proceedings by order dated 10-08-2018
Source: Current Court Finding
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The appellant Rajeeb Kothari argued that: (1) The disputes between the parties have been settled outside of court; (2) The High Court erred in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings; (3) Since the underlying civil dispute has been resolved through settlement, there is no justification for continuing the criminal trial; (4) The trial court will have to consider the settlement in any case, making the continuation of proceedings unnecessary.
Respondent's Arguments
The State of West Bengal argued that: (1) The trial is already in progress and should continue; (2) The progress of the trial is a valid reason to not quash the proceedings; (3) The criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because the parties have settled their civil disputes.
Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court reasoned as follows: (1) The appellant had approached the Court because the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; (2) Despite service of notice, the second respondent (de facto complainant) did not appear, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the case; (3) The State's contention that the trial is in progress cannot be appreciated as a valid reason to continue proceedings when the parties have settled; (4) The Court had already granted stay of proceedings on 10-08-2018, indicating the seriousness of the settlement; (5) The charges were under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC, which are offences arising from the civil dispute between the parties; (6) Since the parties have settled their disputes outside court, the trial court will have to take the settlement into consideration in any case; (7) Therefore, there is no need for the criminal proceedings to continue, and the appeal is allowed.
- Emphasis on Settlement and Alternative Dispute Resolution - The Court recognized and encouraged settlement of disputes outside court
- Pragmatic Approach to Justice - The Court focused on practical outcomes rather than procedural technicalities
- Recognition of Party Autonomy - The Court respected the parties' decision to settle their dispute
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Proceedings in GR Case No. 634 of 2001 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Kolkata are quashed
- 2.Stay of operation and implementation of the impugned judgment granted on 10-08-2018
Precedential Assessment
Binding (SC)
This is a judgment of the Supreme Court of India, which is the highest court in the country. It establishes binding precedent for all lower courts in India on the issue of quashing criminal proceedings when parties have settled their disputes.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Case Registered
Listed On:
16 Nov 2018
Order Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1408 OF 2018 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 6082 OF 2018]
RAJEEB KOTHARI Appellant (s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2018.12.24 16:40:06 IST Reason:
Signature Not Verified
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant approached this Court since the High Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The appellant sought quashing of proceedings in GR Case No. 634 of 2001 pending on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Kolkata. It is the case of the appellant that the disputes between the parties have been settled.
3. Despite service of notice, the second respondent, who is the de-facto complainant, is not present. There is no appearance as well. The learned counsel appearing for the State, however, points out that the trial is in progress. We are afraid, this contention cannot be appreciated. This Court had granted stay of the proceedings by order dated 10.08.2018.
4. We find that the appellant was chargesheeted under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC. Now that the parties have settled their disputes outside the court, we do not find that there is any need for the criminal proceedings to continue any further since in any case, the trial court will have to take into consideration the settlement. The appeal is, hence, allowed.
5. Proceedings in GR Case No. 634 of 2001 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Kolkata are quashed.
.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J. [ HEMANT GUPTA ]
New Delhi; November 16, 2018.
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order