17.8.2026 7-8 sb CRR 241 of 2025 with CRAN 1 of 2026 Lalita Shaw & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. With CRR 2829 of 2025 with CRAN 4 of 2026 Ankit Shaw Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Agniva Banerjee … for the petitioner Mr. Aasish Chowdhury Ms. Priyanka Sarkar Mr. Meera Agarwal …for the O.P. no. 2 Mr. Kallol Basu Mr. Dipayan Dan …for the State In CRR 241 of 2025 Mr. Imran Siddiqui …for the State In CRR 2829 of 2025 A report submitted by the State is taken on record. The Application being CRR 241 of 2025 has been preferred by the husband/accused and another Application being CRR 2829 of 2025 has been preferred by the in-laws of the defacto-complainant in connection with the same G.R case no. 1297 of 2024 arising out of Bidhannagar Women Police Station case no. 17 of 2024, presently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners submits in respect of both the applications that the complaint lacks the basic 2 fundamentals to attract the allegations levelled in the FIR and the Investigating officer failed to consider such fact and filed charge-sheet against the petitioners of both the applications after making perfunctory investigation. The story concocted by the opposite party no. 2 is improbable and absurd and even if it is accepted as gospel truth, then also the placements of facts singularly lack either of the ingredients of the offences alleged. The entire complaint narrated by the opposite party no. 2 suffers from hollowness and contradictions. During investigation, the prosecution agency has failed to record any statement from any other independent witnesses and the investigating agency in the most mala fide manner had only relied on the statements of the family members of the opposite party no. 2 and thereby submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Section 85/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS. However, during pendency of the aforesaid criminal proceeding, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and to that extent, they have entered into a memorandum of understanding on 16th June, 2026. In view of such settlement, the opposite party no. 2 has decided not to proceed further with the proceeding and as such, further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be nothing but a mere abuse of process of the court. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on instruction submits that in view of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, the defacto-complainant has 3 decided not to support the imputations levelled in the complaint during trial and as such, she also prays for quashment of the impugned proceeding. Learned counsel for the State placed a report today before this court, which discloses that the Investigating agency informed the defacto-complainant through e-mail as she is presently residing outside Kolkata. However, she has admitted that an amicable settlement has been arrived at by and between the accused persons and the defacto- complainant. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, it appears from the statement that in view of the memorandum of understanding arrived at by and between the parties, the defacto-complainant has decided not to support the imputations levelled in the complaint during trial. It further appears that both the petitioners of the two applications as well as the opposite party no. 2/defacto-complainant have jointly prayed for quashment of the proceeding. In such circumstances, if the prayer made by the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 is rejected only on the ground that some of the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet are non-compoundable, then it may become counter productive and may create an impediment for their own future peaceful life. 4 In view of above, I find that this is a fit case where the proceeding is liable to be quashed invoking this Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Accordingly, CRR 241 of 2025 along with the connected application and CRR 2829 of 2025 along with the connected application are hereby allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R case no. 1297 of 2024 arising out of Bidhannagar Women Police Station case no. 17 of 2024, presently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar 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.)