14.09.2026 Sl. No.04. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/3039/2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026 Gourav Khatri & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Nigam Ashish Chakraborty, Mr. Agniva Banerjee, Ms. Ankita Paul …for the petitioners Ms. Ankana Pal …for the opposite party Mr. Gourango Kr. Das, Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee, Mr. Chandra Gupta Kamal …for the State Mr. Gourango Kumar Das and Mr. Raashis Mukherjee, empanelled advocates of the State are hereby directed to represent the State in the instant case. Concerned department shall regularize the appointment of Mr. Das and Mr. Mukherjee accordingly. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the proceeding being G.R. Case No.390 of 2016 under Sections 498A/406/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 got married to opposite party no.2 on 13th August, 2012 and they are blessed with a male child. However, due to matrimonial discord, the de facto 2 complainant lodged the present FIR alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners used to torture and threaten her to leave the matrimonial home with the minor child. It is further alleged that the petitioner no.1 had beaten the opposite party no.2 and that they never used to give proper food to the opposite party no.2 and thereby the victim was subjected to various forms of mental and physical cruelty at the behest of the petitioners herein. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners under Sections 498A/406/506/34 IPC. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that they are innocent and the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and baseless. The omnibus nature of allegations have arisen due to certain misunderstanding and general matrimonial discord by and between the petitioner no.1 and the opposite party no.2. However, during pendency of the present proceeding, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and to that extent they have filed one connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submits that in view of such amicable settlement and on execution of the Memorandum of Understanding, the opposite party no.2/de facto complainant has decided not to proceed further with the said criminal proceeding, and, therefore, further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be mere abuse of 3 the process of the Court and, therefore, he prayed for quashment of the said proceeding. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party on instruction submits that in view of execution of Memorandum of Understanding, the dispute has been amicably resolved and thereby the opposite party no.2 has decided not to support the imputations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR and, as such, she also submits that the prayer for quashment made by the petitioners may be allowed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the Case Diary along with a report sent by Baguiati Police Station dated 14.09.2026. The same be kept with the record. On perusal of the report, it appears that the complainant has specifically expressed her unwillingness to pursue the criminal case any further and she wants to put an end to the said proceeding. I have considered submissions made on behalf of both the parties. It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and also on perusal of the complaint as well as materials collected during investigation that the allegation is omnibus in nature and no specific overtact has been attributed against any of the petitioners. In view of such general omnibus allegations, there is hardly any chance of yielding any fruitful result even if a façade trial is allowed to continue. However, the parties have amicably settled their disputes and, thereby, the de facto complainant has decided 4 not to support the imputations levelled against the petitioners in the complaint. Therefore in view of statements made by the parties in the connected Application being CRAN 1 of 2026 and also in view of statement made by the complainant before police, annexed with the report, it appears that there is no reasonable likelihood of the accused persons being convicted of the offence. What would happen to the trial of the case where the wife/complainant has decided not to support the imputations made in the FIR. I think in such circumstances it would not be proper to decline the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS, only on the ground that it would be permitting the parties to compound a non- compoundable offence. If such hyper-technical view is taken in order to decline the quashment, it would be counter-productive and may also act against interests of the de facto complainant and against the object for which section 498A has been legislated. Refusal of quashment may also prevent the woman/complainant from resolving their dispute earlier, which they want to make for their future peaceful life. In such view of the matter, the instant application being CRR 3039 of 2026 is allowed. Connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.390 of 2016 presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat is hereby quashed. 5 Personal appearance of the Investigating Officer is hereby dispensed with. 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. )