D/L10 09.09.2026 Bpg. C.R.R.2859 of 2026 With CRAN 1 of 2026 Zaveri Ankit Jatinbhai Versus The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Dushyant Pratap Singh Ms. Akansha Yadav. …for the petitioner. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld.P.P. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Mr. Aditya Tiwari Ms. Namrata Chatterjee. …for the State. Mr. Amir Ali. …for the opposite party no.2. The report submitted by S.I. of Police, Joynagar Police Station is taken on record. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the proceeding being Joynagar P.S. Case NBo.706 of 2025 dated 12.08.2025 corresponding to G.R. Case No.6391 of 2025 presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite no.2 and the petitioner are legally wedded husband and wife. Due to some matrimonial discord occasioned by emotional upheaval, depression 2 and misapprehension between the parties, the opposite party no.2 was undergoing medical treatment and professional counseling, during which period the present criminal proceeding was initiated. However, subsequent to the aforesaid events, with the active intervention and conciliatory efforts of elders and well-wishers, the parties have amicably settled and resolved all their disputes and differences by mutual consent. The parties have also entered into a memorandum of understanding on 22nd June, 2026 without being influenced by any force, coercion, pressure, threat of any nature whatsoever. The parties recording their mutual settlement have also filed a connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026. Pursuant to the aforesaid amicable settlement, the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 have resumed their matrimonial life at Surat, Gujarat with a firm and genuine intent to continue their matrimonial life in harmony and dignity. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. However, in view of voluntary settlement arrived at by and between the parties and also in view of complete restoration of the matrimonial relationship, the very substratum and foundation of the criminal proceeding stands wholly extinguished rendering the continuance of such proceeding to be nothing but abuse of the process of law. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is no chance of conviction at the end of the trial in view of such amicable settlement the impugned criminal proceeding may be quashed invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNS. 3 Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 is the sole eyewitness to the alleged incident but she voluntarily informed and unequivocally declared in the memorandum of understanding that the allegations were lodged on heat of the moment and during her examination under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C she has also not supported the imputations levelled against the petitioner to constitute the alleged offences. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the opposite party no.2 has decided not to support the imputation levelled against the petitioner during trial and, as such, she also submits that the prayer for quashment as made by the petitioner, if allowed, she will not have any objection. Learned advocate appearing for the State placed the case diary and pointed out the statement recorded during investigation under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and I have also gone through the materials collected during the investigation. From the materials, I find that the statement and other documents available in the record and the case diary does not constitute offence as levelled in the charge- sheet. However, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and by recording their settlement, they have filed a connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026. Since the parties have restored their matrimonial relationship and are presently residing peacefully as husband and wife, I find that if the prayer for quashment made by both of them is refused only on the ground that the offence 4 under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable, then it may become counterproductive. Moreover, such refusal may also frustrate the object of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code because it may go against the interest of the victim for whose protection the said provision has been legislated. Therefore, I find that this is a fit case where invoking this Court’s inherent jurisdiction the proceeding is to be quashed. In view of above, CRR 2859 of 2026 and CRAN 1 of 2026 are allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.6391 of 2025 presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas is hereby quashed. 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.)