07.09.2026 Sl. No.12. M/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/650/2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026 XYZ Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Debasis Kar, Mr. Arka Tilak Bhadra, …for the petitioner Ms. Paramita Mukherjee …for the de facto complainant Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Ms. Namrata Chatterjee …for the State The report submitted by Sub-Inspector of Basudebpur Police Station, Barrackpur Police Commissionerate dated 25.08.2026 along with the xerox copy of annexure which includes statement of the victim including her prayer is taken on record. The petitioner herein is aggrieved with the proceeding being Basudebpur Police Station Case No.223 of 2024 dated 07.09.2024 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 9 of the Child Marriage Act. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner and the opposite party are a married couple. No complaint was lodged on behalf of the alleged victim but when she was admitted in the hospital to give birth to her child, the hospital authority initiated the instant proceeding under a statutory obligation (mandatory reporting under section 19 of POCSO Act). The hospital’s action was legally correct and the police is duty bound to investigate. 2 However, the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged victim, i.e. opposite party no.2 is well accepted and all the members are enjoying a blissful life and there is no family discord amongst themselves. To that extent, they have also filed one connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026. Therefore, the petitioner submits that the de facto complainant or the witnesses will not depose in support of the imputation levelled against the petitioner and, therefore, there is no chance of conviction of the present petitioner at the end of trial. It would be of no use to continue with the present proceeding and, as such, the proceeding may be quashed invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2/victim submits that the alleged victim and the petitioner are leading peaceful conjugal life and the de facto complainant has no sort of allegation against the present petitioner and she will not depose in support of the imputation levelled in the complaint. Therefore, opposite party no.2 submits that the proceeding may be quashed as prayed for by the petitioner in the interest of their future matrimonial life. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed a report along with the statement of the alleged victim which clearly discloses that at present she is residing at her matrimonial home and leading her matrimonial life peacefully along with the petitioner and she has made a prayer before this Court that if her husband is released from the hassle of Judicial proceeding, she will remain greatful to the Court. The concerned police officer has also reported that the victim is leading her conjugal life with the petitioner who is her husband, so she has no allegation against the petitioner and, as such, the victim and the 3 petitioner and all her family members want quashing of all further proceeding. I have considered submissions made on behalf of all the parties. It is undoubtedly true that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is a grave one and the offence is not compoundable. However, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the submission made on behalf of all the parties that the de facto complainant at present is leading peaceful matrimonial life with the petitioner and they are blessed with a child, who is now aged about 2 years. It further appears from the submissions made on behalf of learned Counsel for the opposite party that she and her family members will not depose in support of prosecution case. Therefore, it is apparent that even if the prosecution is allowed to continue on the ground that the offence is not compoundable and the allegations are serious in nature, the parties will only have to go for a façade of trial which would eventually end in acquittal. Therefore, if the prayer for quashment made by the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 is refused on the above mentioned grounds and they are forced to go for ordeal of a criminal trial, it will not yield any fruitful result and on the contrary it may become counter-productive and go against the interest of the victim for whose protection, the said provisions have been legislated. Moreover further continuance of proceeding would only disturb victim’s peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous but consistent that she wants the matter to end. So any further continuance will only prolong distress of all concerned, especially the victim and will burden the courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome. Therefore, I find that this is a fit case where the proceeding is to be quashed by invoking inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice. 4 In view of above, CRR 650 of 2026 is allowed. Connected application being CRR 1 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of. The impugned proceeding being Basudebpur Police Station FIR No.223 of 2024 is hereby quashed. Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly collected from the official website of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta. ( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )