13.02.2026 Sl. No.12. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/5176/2024 with IA No:CRAN 1 of 2026 Arvind Parasramka Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee, Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Mr. Joyjeev Medhi … for the petitioner/applicant no.1 in CRAN 1 of 2026. Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. V.V.V. Sastry, Mr. Aseem Sah, Mr. C. Fernandez, Ms. Khushi Gupta, Mr. Apalak Basu, Mr. M. Jain, Mr. Sameer Sah …for opposite party no.2 Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld.P.P., Mr. Saryati Dutta, Ms. Madhumita Basak …for the State The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing of proceeding of G.R. Case No.608 of 2019 presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 20th Court at Calcutta. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner sent a letter on 20.02.2019 to the complainant/company annexing a letter dated 17.05.2017 allegedly issued by complainant company to the petitioner. It is alleged that said letter is at 17.05.2017 was a forged letter and it was different from what was stated in the letter of the same date. However petitioner’s contention in the Application is Question Document 2 Examination Bureau’s expert opinion dated 07.03.2022 negates the core allegation of forgery against the petitioner. However, it is submitted that during the pendency of the present proceeding good sense prevailed among the parties and the applicant and the private opposite party along with all other affected stake-holders had entered into a settlement on 4th December, 2025 whereby all disputes civil and criminal inter-se the parties including the subject matter of present FIR and the impugned proceeding herein have been fully and finally dissolved. In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the complainant does not want to proceed further with the instant proceeding and he wants that the instant proceeding be quashed as prayed by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the State submits that since the parties have amicably settled their dispute which is purely private in nature, the State does not want to stand in their way of amicable settlement. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and both the opposite parties, it appears that the complainant/opposite party no.2 has decided not to adduce evidence in support of the imputations levelled in the complaint and, as such, the conviction of the present petitioner at the end of the trial is bleak. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and if their prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused only on the ground that some of the sections are not compoundable it may become counter-productive for their future co-existence and business relationship. I am also informed that both the parties are present in person today before the Court. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is a fit case where the proceeding is liable to be quashed 3 invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 528 of the BNSS. In such view of the matter, CRR 5176 of 2024 along with CRAN 1 of 2026 are allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.608 of 2019, presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 20th Court, Calcutta is hereby quashed. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )