D/L8 09.09.2026 Bpg. C.R.R.2934 of 2026 With CRAN 1 of 2026 Sri Soumik Sen & Ors. Versus Smt. Ria Dutta & Anr. Ms. Sutapa Sanyal Mr. Rupayan Deb Ms. Priya Nandy. …for the petitioners. Mr. Rajdeep Biswas Mr. Ravi Ranjan Kumar. …for the State. Mr. Sanat Kr. Das Mr. Sujon Chatterjee Mr. Anirban Guhathakurta Mr. Rohan Bavishi. …for the opposite party no.1. As prayed for, leave is granted to correct the Matrimonial Suit Number in the application. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the proceeding being G.R. Case No.839 of 2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite no.1 herein lodged a complaint against the petitioners with the allegation of physical and mental cruelty and also for criminal breach of trust. However, it is submitted that, during pendency of the proceeding, 2 they have amicably settled their dispute and the petitioner no.1/husband has agreed to pay one time permanent alimony of Rs.13 lakhs to the opposite party no.1 as full and final settlement, part of the said amount has already been paid and the petitioners and the opposite party no.1 in terms of the said settlement have decided not to proceed further with the said criminal proceeding. It is further submitted that the petitioner no 1 and the opposite party have also filed one suit seeking mutual divorce, being Matrimonial Suit No.2085 of 2026 which is pending for disposal. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be mere abuse of the process of court. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1, on instruction, submits that the de facto complainant has settled the dispute with the petitioners and, therefore, she has decided not to support the imputations leveled against the petitioners in the complaint. She also submits that if the petitioners’ prayer for quashment, is allowed, she will not have any objection. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State places the case diary and submits that during investigation statements of four witnesses have been recorded. He further submits that during investigation the seized stridhan articles have already been returned to the de facto complainant. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the State does not want to stand in the way of their amicable settlement as the dispute is primarily matrimonial and 3 private in nature and no public policy is involved with the alleged offences. Therefore, he leaves the prayer made by the petitioners and the opposite party no.1 to the discretion of the Court. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, it appears that the petitioners and the opposite party no.1 have entered into an amicable settlement and to that extent they have filed a connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 signed by both parties, wherein they have disclosed that the parties are not interested to go further with the present criminal proceeding. In the said connected Application signed by both the parties being CRAN 1 of 2026, it has been categorically averred that husband petitioner has agreed to pay a onetime permanent alimony of Rs. 13,00,000/- to his wife in full and final settlement by three installments, out of which first installment of Rs. 3,00,000/- has already been paid, with the filing of mutual divorce petition and the second installment would be paid with the withdrawal of present G.R Case no. 839 of 2019 and the proceeding initiated under the domestic violence act and last installment of Rs. 7,00,000/- would be paid on the date of final hearing of the mutual divorce proceeding. Apparently the settlement between the parties appears to be genuine. If there was no settlement the wife/opposite party would not have received the part payment, nor had they filed suit seeking dissolution of marriage mutually. What remains is that on receipt of part payment in terms of settlement, parties will dissolve their matrimonial tie. No dispute raised regarding agreed payment. 4 In such circumstances continuing with the criminal proceeding would not serve any meaningful purpose but will only prolong distress for all concerned and will burden the courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome. Therefore, I find that even if a faced trial is allowed to continue there is hardly any chance of conviction of the petitioners at the end of trial. On the contrary, if the prayer for quashment is rejected only on the ground that some of the sections are not compoundable, then it may become counter productive. Since there is no chance of yielding any fruitful result by continuing the instant proceeding, I find that this is a fit case where the proceeding is to be quashed invoking this Court inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNS. In view of the above, CRR 2934 of 2026 and CRAN 1 of 2026 are allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.839 of 2019 presently pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar 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.)