14.09.2026 Sl. No.03. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/3632/2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026 Rishabh Jain & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. Ms. Minal Palana, Mr. Swaraj Shaw …for the petitioners Mr. Abhijit Chowdhury, Mr. Subham Agarwal …for the opposite party no.2 Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld.P.P., Mr. Anamitra Banerjee, Ms. Priyanka Bhattacharya …for the State Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioners is taken on record. The petitioners herein have prayed for quashment of the proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.804 of 2022 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code, presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas. In the FIR, the opposite party no.2 herein alleged physical and mental torture coupled with cheating and criminal breach of trust which has been registered as Bidhannagar Police Station Case No.138 of 2022 dated 15.08.2022. After completion of investigation, the investigating agency has submitted charge-sheet under the above-mentioned sections. 2 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that all the allegations levelled against them in the instant complaint are false and on the contrary, the petitioner no.1 all along well maintained his wife and child. However, during pendency of the present proceeding, the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 amicably settled the dispute among themselves and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18th February, 2026. In view of such amicable settlement, the opposite party/de facto complainant does not want to proceed further with the said criminal proceeding and recording aforesaid amicable settlement both the petitioners and de facto complainant have filed a connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026. Therefore, he submits that further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be mere abuse of the process of the Court. He prayed for quashment of the said proceeding. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 on instruction submits that in view of Memorandum of Understanding signed by both the parties, they have agreed to dissolve their matrimonial tie by way of mutual divorce and the opposite party no.2 does not want to support the imputation levelled against the petitioners and he further submits that if the prayer for quashment of the aforesaid criminal proceeding made by the petitioner is allowed, the opposite party no.2 does not have any objection. Therefore, she also prays for quashment of the proceeding. 3 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted a report along with the case diary. The report also contains recording of a statement of the de facto complainant which states that since she has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with her husband for amicable resolution of their matrimonial dispute and since both are agreeable to file a mutual divorce petition before the competent Court of law, she no longer wants to pursue the said criminal proceeding, and, therefore, she has also prayed for quashment of the proceeding. I have considered submissions made on behalf of all the parties and I have also gone through the materials available in the case diary including the statements recorded during investigation. On perusal of the complaint and the materials collected during investigation, I find that even if the general and omnibus allegations are taken to be true, still they do not constitute any offence either under Section 498A or 406 of the IPC against the petitioners in the absence of any specific role attributable to each of them. Furthermore, it appears that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and they have signed a Memorandum of Understanding in terms of which the de facto complainant has decided not to support the imputations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR. Moreover it appears from a reading of the FIR and the other available materials that the dispute is purely matrimonial and personal one between husband and his family members with the wife, which arose due to matrimonial discord and that there is 4 absolutely no public policy involved in the nature of allegations made against the petitioners. I therefore am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceeding in the light of the compromise. In such circumstances, I also find that there is hardly any chance of conviction of the present petitioners even if a façade trial is allowed to continue only due to the ground that Section 498A of the IPC is not a compoundable offence. Therefore, it is a fit case where the criminal proceeding is required to be quashed invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice. In view of above, CRR 3632 of 2026 is allowed. Connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.804 of 2022 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24 Parganas be 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. )