02.9.2026 07. Bd. CRR 3068 of 2025 With CRAN 3 of 2026 CRAN 4 of 2026 Sunil Chandra Saha Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Anirban Dutta Mr. Abhra Jena Mr. Swarnadeep Khara …for the Petitioner Dr. Achin Jana Mrs. Pritha Sinha …for the State Mr. Younis Sultan Mr. Vignesh Arun Prakash ..for the O.P. no. 2 The report submitted by Inspector-in-Charge Eco Park Police Station dated 01.09.2026 along the statement of the defacto-complainant are taken on record. The petitioner herein has sought for quashment of the proceeding under sections 417/376/506 of Indian Penal Code corresponding to GR Case No. 1676 of 2024 presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas. Being aggrieved by the said proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant proceeding has been initiated by the opposite party no. 2, herein against the petitioner but the complaint does not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the petitioner under section 417/376 of the IPC. The opposite party no. 2 was well aware of the uncertainty of their relationship and there was no fraudulent 2 inducement by the petitioner. This is also because the opposite party no. 2 is well aware of the fact that the petitioner’s earlier marriage has not been dissolved and he had a child, and thus the allegations of misrepresentation and false promise of marriage does not arise. Referring the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar –vs- State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 petitioner’s contention is that there is clear distinction between rape and consensual sex and the court must carefully examine whether the complainant had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to that effect only to satisfy his lust, as the latter falls within the ambit of cheating or deception. There is also a distinction between mere breach of promise and not fulfilling a false promise. In this context petitioner has also relied upon the case of Rajnish Singh @ Soni – vs- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 478 and Mahesh Damu Khare –vs- State of Maharashtra reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3471. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that however during pendency of the instant proceeding the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 have amicably settled their disputes and a Memorandum of Understanding has also been signed to that effect and in view of such settlement the defacto-complainant has decided not to proceed any further with the present criminal proceeding and she has also decided not to support the imputations leveled against the petitioner during trial. To that extent a connected application being CRAN 4 of 2026 signed by both the parties have been filed. 3 Therefore, further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be a mere abuse of the process of the court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2/defacto complainant submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and he on instruction submits that the petitioner is not willing to continue the present criminal proceeding and he also wants that the Criminal Proceeding being GR Case No. 1676 of 2024 be quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the case diary and he has pointed out the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 and 161 of the Cr.P.C. and also medical report and other connected documents available in the case diary. However, in respect of the settlement that has been arrived at by and between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2, he leaves the matter to the discretion of the court. It further appears that the Inspector-in-Charge of the ECO Park police station has submitted a report before this Court, which discloses that the defacto-complainant has stated before police that she had made a settlement with the petitioner voluntarily and that she has no grievance at present against the accused/petitioner. One copy of her recorded statement has been annexed with the report which discloses that on 12.08.2026 both the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and in view of said Memorandum of Understanding the defacto-complainant also wants that the proceeding be quashed. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the allegations against the petitioner is a serious one but still 4 the parties have arrived at a settlement and thereby they have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 both prays before this court for quashment of the proceeding, in view of the fact that the defacto complainant does not want to support the imputations leveled against the petitioner. In such circumstances, though quashing of a proceeding involving such grave and heinous offence is not generally encouraged and should not be dealt with lightly but the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is mainly intended to secure the ends of justice. In a similar situation in Madhukar & Ors. -vs- State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 819, the Supreme Court held that parties have amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding and therefore the continuance of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose, as it would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and the burden of Courts, without the likelihood of a productive outcome. In the present case the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and the defacto-complainant has decided not to support the imputations leveled in the complaint, therefore I find that further continuance of the impugned proceeding even if, it involves a serious and grave crime, would not yield any fruitful result and it would only cause abuse of the process of the court. In such view of the matter, CRR 3068 of 2025 along with CRAN 3 of 2026 and CRAN 4 of 2026 are allowed. The impugned proceeding being GR Case No. 1676 of 2024 /SC 163 of 2025 in connection with Eco Park Police Station dated 5 05.05.2024 presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas stands quashed. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)