2.9.2026 10 sb CRR 87 of 2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026 CRAN 2 of 2026 Shamit Bhattacharya Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Pinak Kumar Mitra Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava … for the petitioners Ms. Urbi Roy … for the O.P. no. 2 Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. PP Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Mr. Sreyash Kumar Singh …for the State In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being G.R. case no. 517 of 2025, presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after marriage, the relationship between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 deteriorated resulting in constant harassment of the petitioner due to which he slipped into depression for which, he was prescribed strong medication. Despite being fully aware of ongoing health issues of the petitioner, the opposite party no. 2 showed no concern or care for his well-being and thereby she neglected the petitioner. The petitioner’s depression got so severe around 2023 that the petitioner was unable to live a disciplined life due to his medication and succumbed to epileptic disease. 2 Thereafter, the opposite party initiated the present FIR with the allegation that the petitioner twisted her wrist forcefully and kicked her in the stomach with the intention of killing her and used abusive language. The complainant also stated that after the alleged incident, she was suffering from critical physical and mental trauma and feared for her life. On the basis of such allegation, Bidhannagar Police Station case no. 38 of 2025 corresponding to G.R. case no. 517 of 2025 was started and after completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the present petitioner. However, during pendency of the impugned proceeding, the parties have amicably settled their marital dispute and thereby they have entered into a memorandum of agreement dated 5th August, 2026. Therefore, the petitioner submits that in view of amicable settlement, the opposite party no. 2/defacto-complainant has decided not to support the imputations levelled in the complaint and to that extent, both the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 have filed a connected application being CRAN 2 of 2026 recording their settlement. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be mere abuse of process of the court. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on instruction submits that in view of amicable settlement arrived at by and between the parties, the defacto- complainant does not want to proceed further with the 3 criminal proceeding and she has also decided not to adduce evidence against the present petitioner in support of the allegations levelled in the complaint. Therefore, she also submits that the proceeding may be quashed in terms of the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State placed the case diary and pointed out the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well the medical report. However, he leaves the prayer made by the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 to the discretion of the court. I have considered the submission made by both the parties. On perusal of the case diary though it appears that certain incriminating materials have been collected during investigation by the prosecution agency but since the defacto- complainant has decided not to support the imputations levelled against the present petitioner, I find that further continuance of the impugned proceeding against the present petitioner would not yield any fruitful result. The parties have entered into a memorandum of agreement in the interest of their future peaceful life and in such circumstances, if the prayer for quashment made by both the parties is refused only on the ground that some of the offences are not compoundable, it may become counter productive. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is a fit case where the proceeding is to be quashed invoking this court’s jurisdiction under Section 482 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 528 of the BNSS. In view of above, CRR 87 of 2026 along with CRAN 1 of 2026 and CRAN 2 of 2026 are allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R. case no. 517 of 2025, presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar is hereby quashed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)