Bonanza Trading Company Private Limited And Others v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

13.02.2026 Sl. No.1-2.

D/L.

Mithun.

Ct.No.29.

CRR/447/2024 with IA No:CRAN 1 of 2024, CRAN 3 of 2024, CRAN 4 of 2024, CRAN 5 of 2025, CRAN 8 of 2025, CRAN 9 of 2026 and CRAN 10 of 2026.

Bonanza Trading Company Private Limited & Ors. Vs.

State of West Bengal & Anr.

With CRR/227/2024 with IA No:CRAN 1 of 2024, CRAN 3 of 2026 Arvind Parasramka Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. V.V.V. Sastry, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr. Sameer Sah Mr. C. Fernandez, Ms. Khushi Gupta, Mr. Apalak Basu, Mr. M. Jain, ...for the petitioner in CRR 447 of 2024.

Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee, Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Mr. Joyjeev Medhi ... for the opposite party no.2/applicant no.4 in CRAN 10 of 2026 in CRR 447 of 2024.

Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Mr. Debroop Bhattacharjee, Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Mr. Joyjeev Medhi ...for the petitioner in CRR 227 of 2024/applicant no.1 in CRAN 3 of 2026.

Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Sr. Adv.

Mr. V.V.V. Sastry, Mr. Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr. Sameer Sah Mr. C. Fernandez, Ms. Khushi Gupta,

Mr. Apalak Basu, Mr. M. Jain ...for the respondent in CRR 227 of 2024 Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld.P.P., Ms. Amita Gaur,Sr. Govt. Adv., Ms. Sana Naaz ...for the State The petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of proceeding of C.G.R. Case No.2793 of 2018 presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore.

The instant case was recorded on the basis of an FIR against the accused persons on the allegation that accused persons prepared forged documents in respect of 1000 shares of Calcutta Investment and had used the forged documents as genuine and transferred the said share to the petitioner/company in contravention of law and petitioners thereby have cheated and have committed criminal breach of trust. However, it is submitted that during the pendency of the present proceeding the applicant and the private opposite party along with all other affected stake-holders had entered into a settlement on 4th December, 2025 whereby all disputes civil and criminal inter-se the parties including the subject matter of present FIR and the impugned proceeding herein have been fully and finally dissolved. In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the complainant does not want to proceed further with the instant proceeding and he wants that the instant proceeding be quashed as prayed by the petitioners.

Learned Counsel for the State submits that since no public money has been involved in the instant proceeding and since the parties have amicably settled their dispute which is purely private in nature, the State does not want to stand in their way of amicable settlement.

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and both the opposite parties, it appears that the complainant/opposite party no.2 has decided not to adduce evidence in support of the imputations levelled in the complaint and, as such, the conviction of the present petitioners at the end of the trial is bleak. The parties have amicably settled their dispute and if their prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused only on the ground that some of the sections are not compoundable it may become counter-productive for their future co-existence and business relationship.

I am also informed that both the parties are present in person today before the Court.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that this is a fit case where the proceeding is liable to be quashed invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 528 of the BNSS.

In such view of the matter, CRR 447 of 2024 along with connected applications are allowed. The impugned proceeding being C.G.R. Case No.2793 of 2018, presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore is hereby quashed. In view of disposal of CRR 447 of 2024, the Application being CRR 227 of 2024 also stands disposed of. Learned Counsel for the petitioners prays for return of the seized document. Learned Counsel for the State did not raise any objection. Since the proceeding has been quashed, the Investigating Agency will be at liberty to return the seized documents, if sought for by the parties on proper receipt.

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. )