Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5552 (CAL)

ABHISHEK CHOKHANI AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

CRR/4/2026 · 2026-02-19

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

19.2.2026 2 sb CRR 4 of 2026 With CRAN 1 of 2026 Abhishek Chokhani & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Karan Dudhwewala …for the Petitioners Mr. Vikash Choubey …for the O.P. no. 2 Ms. Sreyashee Biswas Mr. Kunal Ganguly …for the State A report dated 15.2.2026 by SI, Manicktala Police Station filed by the State along with connected self declaration made by the complainant are taken on record. In this application, the allegation levelled against the present petitioners are that though the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have business relationship with the husband of the opposite party no. 2 but allegedly on 17.11.2024, the petitioners forcefully entered into the flat of the opposite party no. 2 and encroached upon all the valuable items of the opposite party no. 2 including her ornaments and all property deeds and she was allegedly forced to sign on papers, the contents of which are unknown to her. However, during the pendency of the present application, good sense prevailed among the parties, they have come forward to amicably settle the dispute and to that extent, they have filed one connected application being CRAN 1 of 2026 signed by the defacto-complainant and all four petitioners. 2 Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the opposite party no. 2 does not want to proceed further with the instant proceeding, which is pending before the court below in view of the amicable settlement by and between the parties. Learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has recorded self declaration of defacto- complainant, Manju Patoria who has stated that since she has settled the matter with the opposite party with the help of well- wishers, so she does not want to proceed any more and wants to withdraw the complaint. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I find that the complainant has decided not to adduce the evidence in support of the imputations levelled in the complaint and as such, there is hardly any chance of conviction at the end of trial. Therefore, further continuance of instant proceeding will be mere abuse of process of the court. In view of above, CRR 4 of 2026 along with CRAN 1 of 2026 are hereby allowed. The instant proceeding being G.R. case no. 2026 of 2025, presently pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah is hereby quashed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)