7.7.2026 21 sb CRR 688 of 2026 Debdas Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Shibaji Kr. Das Ms. Deblina De Ms. Maitrayee Das …for the Petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP Mr. Imran Siddiqui …for the State Opposite party no. 2 is not represented. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being S.C. no. 307 of 2025 arising out of Kalyani Police Station Case no. 418 of 2025 dated 30th April, 2025, presently pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyani, Nadia. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was alleged by the opposite party no. 2 herein that she had acquaintance with the accused person since 2008 and had a relation with him which later turned into love. It is further alleged that on 5th January, 2019, the accused person committed sexual inter- course with her by giving false promise of marriage at Picnic Garden, Kalyani and thereafter the accused person had committed sexual intercourse with her several times at different places. He further submits that on 14th November, 2021, the accused person had called her at Kalyani Picnic Garden and said that he will not marry her. He further submits that thereafter on 30th November, 2021, she went 2 to the house of the accused person to meet with his parents where they abused her with dirty and filthy languages and also assaulted her. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the mother of the petitioner herein had lodged a complaint case against the opposite party no. 2 herein over the allegation of assault and the same has been registered as Complaint Case no. C-197 of 2025. He further submits that with the self-same allegation, the same defacto-complainant had lodged a complaint earlier on 18th January, 2022, which culminated into Kalyani Police Station case no. 16 of 2022 dated 19th January, 2022 under Sections 376/417/120B/341/323 of the IPC. In the instant case, the charge-sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner. He further submits that on 15th July, 2025, the opposite party no. 2 herein had filed a suit for declaration and injunction as against the petitioner herein and his family members being Title Suit no. 156 of 2025 and from the averments made on oath in the plaint of the said suit, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 admitted that her love with the petitioner herein matured into marriage after waiting for a long period of 11 years at Saraswati Mata Mandir, Goshpara, Kalyani on 15th March, 2022 by performing Hindu Rituals and Customs in presence of purohit, relatives and friends and the said marriage was duly consummated as per the provisions of Hindu Rituals. 3 He further submits that therefore, the instant second FIR on the basis of the self-same allegation, does not have any substance and Section 69/74 of the BNS has got no application in the present context. Relying upon the judgment of Chowdhury Bhajanlal Vs. State of Haryana (1992) 1 Supp SCC 335], he submits that this is a fit case where the proceeding is liable to be quashed invoking this court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNS. I have gone through the written complaint, lodged in connection with the FIR being Kalyani Police Station case no. 16 of 2022 dated 19.1.2022 and also the instant FIR being Kalyani Police Station case no. 418 of 2025 dated 30th April, 2025. It appears that in the second FIR, she has made same allegation, which was levelled in the earlier complaint. Moreover, the record reveals that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 averred in Title Suit no. 156 of 2025 that she had first met the defendant no. 1/petitioner herein in early 2008 during her studies at Kalyani Industrial Training Institute Campus. Gradually they fell in love with each other and after waiting 11 years, they have performed their marriage under Hindu Rituals and Customs at Saraswati Mandir in presence of purohit and relatives and friends and the said marriage was duly consummated at the house of the defendant no. 1. It is settled law that multiple complaints by same party against same accused in respect of same incident is impermissible. There can be no second FIR where 4 information concerns same cognizable offence. A second FIR, which is not a cross case in respect of same offence is not only impermissible but also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle of law laid down in T.T. Antony’s case reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 has never been diluted in any subsequent judicial pronouncement. Moreover, in civil suit, the opposite party/complainant has bound herself by her admission, which is also goes against the essential ingredients to constitute offence under Section 69 or 74 of BNS. In view of above, further continuance of the impugned proceeding with the self-same allegation would be nothing but a mere abuse of process of the Court. In view of above, CRR 688 of 2026 is allowed. The impugned proceeding being S.C. no. 307 of 2025 arising out of Kalyani Police Station Case no. 418 of 2025 dated 30th April, 2025 corresponding to G.R. case no. 1533 of 2025, presently pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyani, Nadia is hereby quashed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)