10 24.08.2026 Court No.29. (D.Hira) CRR 934 of 2025 with CRAN 1 of 2025 XXX & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Ms. Puja Goswami. …for the petitioners Mr. Abhijit Mondal. … for the OP no. 2 Mr. Imran Siddiqui. … for the State 1. Report submitted by the Inspector-in-Charge, Chakdaha Police Station dated 20th August, 2026 is taken on record. 2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the proceeding being Chakdaha Police Station Case No. 584 of 2024 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 194 of 2024 presently pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyani, Nadia. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the defacto complainant/opposite party lodged the instant FIR alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 376/417/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and on the basis of investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. 2 4. It is submitted that during pendency of the criminal proceeding at the intervention of the well-wishers and other family members, the parties herein have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court and the defacto complainant and the accused no. 1 have married each other and they are residing together peacefully as husband and wife at present. 5. Therefore, the defacto complainant has decided not to proceed further with the said criminal proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that further continuation of the impugned proceeding would be nothing but mere abuse of the process of the Court as the defacto complainant at her own volition and free will is not willing to proceed with the said case and she has also prayed for quashment of the impugned proceeding. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/defacto complainant on instruction submits that in view of the settlement arrived at by and between the parties, continuance of the proceeding impugned would not serve any fruitful purpose for the cause of justice as there exists no chance/possibility of the proceedings leading to conviction of the petitioners. This is because the defacto complainant has decided not to support the imputations leveled against the petitioners. 8. Today learned counsel for the State has also submitted a report sent by the Inspector-in-Charge, Chakdaha Police Station which discloses that the victim lady is enjoying her 3 conjugal life peacefully along with accused no. 1 and she has no allegation at present against the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State has drawn my attention to the materials collected during investigation. However, so far as the amicable settlement as has been arrived at by the parties, he leaves the prayer made by the private parties to the discretion of the Court. 10. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, it appears that the defacto complainant/opposite party no. 2 has decided not to support the imputations leveled against the petitioners. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at by and between the parties, it is not in dispute that the defacto complainant is leading peaceful matrimonial life at present along with principal accused no.1 and has no grievance against the other petitioners. When both the petitioners and the opposite party no. 2 have prayed for quashment of the proceeding and the defacto complainant has decided not to support the imputation leveled against the petitioners, I find that even if the trial is allowed to continue, it will hardly yield any fruitful result. On the contrary if the prayer for quashment made by both the petitioner and the opposite party is refused only on the ground that some of the offences are not compoundable, it may become counter- productive and may go against the interest of their future peaceful co-existence. 4 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is a fit case for quashing of the proceeding invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. 12. In view of the above, CRR No. 934 of 2025 is allowed. 13. The impugned proceeding being Sessions Case No. 194 of 2024 presently pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyani, Nadia is hereby quashed. 14. The connected application being CRAN 1 of 2025 also stands disposed of. 15. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)