07.9.2026 05. Bd. CRR 1734 of 2025 With CRAN 1 of 2025 CRAN 2 of 2025 Gandham Sita Ram Bhusan & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Satadru Lahiri Mr. Gourav Banerjee Mr. Jyotirmoy Talukdar …for the Petitioners. Mr. Sankalpa Bhattacharya Mr. Arindam Banerjee …for the State Opposite party no. 2/ complainant is not represented. In this application the petitioners have assailed the criminal proceeding being GR Case No. 4195 of 2019 presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Howrah. The petitioner no. 1 herein was married with the defacto complainant and within one year of the marriage dispute cropped up by and between the parties, which gave birth to a number of litigations including the instant criminal proceeding. In the instant complaint the opposite party no. 2 has alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the petitioners on the demand of dowry and on the basis of such allegation Shibpur Police Station Case No. 323 of 2019 dated 05.09.2019 under sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was initiated. Thereafter upon completion of the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. 2 It is further submitted that during pendency of the proceeding arising from matrimonial discord parties have entered into a mutual settlement for settling of their dispute amicably and pursuant to the said settlement, an application under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking dissolution of marriage had been preferred. Thereafter a decree of divorce was passed by Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Visakhapatnam in FCOP no. 1540 of 2021, where it was observed that the marriage was not consummated and the marriage was irretrievably broken down as there is no possibility of them living together. It is submitted that in terms of the conditions mentioned in the mutual understanding entered into by and between the parties, the application under section 125 of the Cr. P.C. being Criminal Misc. 757 of 2019 has been allowed to be dismissed by the opposite party no. 2 herein. However, investigating agency has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners. On proper appreciation of the materials on record it appears that the parties have decided to settle their disputes amicably and after receiving the lump sum amount from the petitioners, the defacto complainant had agreed to withdraw the proceeding initiated against him/them under section 498 A of the IPC and section 125 of the Cr. P.C. It also appears that pursuant to such terms the parties have partially agreed upon and dissolved their matrimonial tie as well as withdraw the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that said terms of settlement have already been formed as part of the record of the judicial 3 proceeding before the learned trial court. Therefore, even if said documentary evidence is of unimpeachable character has been relied upon, still, this High Court can exercise its inherent power under section 528 of the BNSS to quash the impugned proceeding. Petitioners in this context has relied upon the judgement of Ruchi Agarwal –vs- Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 299 and Mohd. Shamim and Ors. –vs- Nahid Begum and Anr. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 302. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the case diary and submits that during investigation police has not recorded the statement of any independent witness but they have recorded the statement of father of the complainant and the brother of the complainant, which discloses an evasive allegation against the petitioners without having any specific role attributed against any of the petitioners in commission of the alleged offences. Therefore learned counsel appearing for the State leaves the prayer made by the petitioners to the discretion of the court. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties. From the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners it appears that in terms of the compromise marked as annexure B in this application, the opposite party no. 2/ defacto complainant obtained divorce as desired by both parties and in partial compliance with the terms of the compromise, the criminal proceeding under section 125 of the Cr. P.C. has already been allowed to be dismissed. However, it appears that when the instant proceeding is taken up for hearing, the police report 4 discloses that she is not traceable though she had agreed in terms of the compromise deed that the instant proceeding shall also be withdrawn on receipt of the onetime lump sum payment. There is apparently nothing to disbelieve that there exists a mutual settlement arrived at by and between the parties and there is also no denial or dispute as regards the factum of entering into in the aforesaid settlement dated 17th July, 2021. In the said compromise the money receipt has been made part of the settlement, where it has been categorically averred that the defacto complainant had accepted a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and thereby she has decided to withdraw the present proceeding as well as the proceeding initiated under section 125 Cr. P.C. Therefore, it appears from the averments that no dispute remained between the parties and ex-facie the settlement between the parties appears to be genuine and there is no possibility that the defacto complainant will depose in support of her imputations. Apart from that, it appears that there is hardly any chance of conviction of the present petitioners, on the basis of materials collected during investigation and in the absence of any specific overt act against the present petitioners to constitute the offences lodged in the FIR. Therefore, I find that further continuance of the impugned proceeding against the present petitioners would not serve any meaningful purpose and if it is refused even after settlement, on the ground that the offence is not compoundable, it would only prolong distress for all concerned and will burden the court without the likelihood of a productive outcome. In view of the above, CRR 1734 of 2025 is allowed. 5 The impugned proceeding being GR Case No. 4195 of 2019 presently pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Howrah, is hereby 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.)