21.09.2026 Sl. No.07. D/L. Mithun. Ct.No.29. CRR/3304/2026 With IA No: CRAN 1 of 2026 Saharsh Sureka & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Karan Dudhwewala …for the petitioners Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Mr. Seokinandan Sharma Mr. S. S. Prasad …for the de facto complainant Mr. Kaustav Shome, Mr. Shoumalya Mazumder …for the State In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the proceeding being G.R.Case No.854 of 2026 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the marriage between the petitioner no.1 and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on November 25, 2025. Thereafter due to matrimonial discord, the de facto complainant had lodged the present complaint under Sections 85/115(2)/117(2)/316(2)/3(5) of the BNS read with Sections 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioners who are the husband, brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant/opposite party. After completion of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Agency. The 2 petitioner states that in the meantime, at the instance of the family members of both the parties an amicable settlement has been arrived at by and between the parties and as a result of which, the opposite party herein is not willing to proceed with the instant case any further. It is further submitted that both the petitioner and opposite party filed a connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 singed by both the parties. He further submits that with the intervention of the common friends and family members, a Memorandum of Understanding has also been signed by and between the parties and, on the basis of which the opposite party has decided not to support the imputations levelled against the petitioners. In such circumstances, further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be mere abuse of the process of the Court and, as such, he prays for quashment of the proceeding. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party, on instruction, submits that in view of amicable settlement, the opposite party has decided not to support the imputations levelled against the petitioners in the written complaint and she further submits that she has no objection if the petitioners’ prayer for quashment is allowed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed such prayer contending that the offence is non-compoundable and, therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceeding. I have considered submissions made by the petitioners and the private opposite party. 3 Having gone through the materials available in the Case records, it appears from charge-sheet that the prosecution proposes to examine five witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS by the police during investigation discloses that the offences alleged against the petitioners have not been made out as the recorded versions are general, evasive and omnibus in nature and no specific role has been attributed against any of the petitioners, to ascertain as to what role has been played by each accused at the time of commission of the alleged offence. Furthermore, it appears that the disputes between the parties are private in nature and the parties have amicably settled their matrimonial dispute and thereby the de facto complainant has decided not to support the imputations levelled against the petitioners during trial, in the interest of their future peaceful life. In such circumstances, there is hardly any chance of conviction of the present petitioners even if the trial is allowed to continue. Moreover no public policy is involved in the present criminal proceeding. Furthermore, what will happen if the trial is allowed to continue when the de facto complainant herself has decided not to support the allegations levelled against the petitioners. On the contrary if the prayer for quashment made by both the parties is refused only on the ground that section 498A of IPC is not a compoundable offence it will only increase their misery and the settlement arrived at by them may become futile and such refusal may also become counterproductive. Therefore, I find that 4 the continuance of a façade trial in the aforesaid special facts and circumstances of the case would be nothing but mere abuse of the process of the Court. Thus, I find that 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 3304 of 2026 is allowed. Connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 is accordingly disposed of. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case No. 854 of 2026 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar is 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. )