16.09.2026 Sl. No.07. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/1728/2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026 Riju Banerjee @ Mayukh Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Nargish Parveen …for the petitioner Mr. Nilanjan Adhikari, Ms. Semanti Dey, Ms. Madhuma Ganguly …for opposite party no.2 Mr. Sagar Saha, Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay …for the State Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. In this application, the petitioner has assailed the proceeding being G.R. Case No.1210 of 2025 under Sections 115(2)/117(2)/126(2)/351(2)/74 of the BNSS which is presently pending before learned First Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused person is a student of Computer Science and Engineering and he has been falsely implicated with the alleged offences. The incident occurred when the petitioner raised protest against frequent power cuts in his flat while doing his college work. He came to know that de facto complainant/opposite party without any prior notice or prior information to the other flat owners, called CESC personnel to solve their flat’s electrical problem and everyone was suffering for 2 the same. Therefore, when the petitioner raised protest, the de facto complainant/opposite party got violent and started to physically abuse him. When other flat owners came to rescue the petitioner, the de facto complainant tried to hurt the petitioner’s right eye but due to spectacles he could somehow saved himself. Thereafter, the instant complaint was lodged by opposite party only to harass the petitioner who is no way responsible with the alleged offence. After making perfunctory investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. However, during pendency of the said criminal proceeding, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and to that extent, they have filed one connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 which has been signed by both the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of such amicable settlement, the parties now want to resolve the misunderstanding that cropped up over the issue and, therefore, the opposite party/de facto complainant have decided not to adduce evidence in support of the complaint and both the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 have jointly decided to put an end to all the differences between them and, therefore, both of them are now praying for quashment of the said proceeding. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 on instruction submits that in view of amicable settlement arrived at by and between the parties, the opposite party no.2 has decided not to support imputations levelled in the complaint and therefore his client has no objection if the petitioner’s prayer for quashment is 3 allowed since no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the said criminal proceeding. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the Case Diary which includes injury report and statement of three witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. I have gone through the materials available in the Case Diary and it appears that the injury report does not disclose the name of the assailant. It further appears that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and, therefore, the de facto complainant decided not to support the imputations levelled in the complaint. Therefore, what purpose will it serve if the trial is allowed to continue when the de facto complainant himself has decided not to support the imputations levelled in the complaint. In the above backdrop, it is clear that there is hardly any chance of conviction of the present petitioner at the end of trial, even if a façade trial is allowed to continue. I also find that no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing the present proceeding and, as such, this is a fit case where the proceeding is liable to be quashed invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. In view of above, CRR 1728 of 2026 along with connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 are allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No.1210 of 2025, presently pending before learned First Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore is hereby quashed. 4 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. )