Radhesyham Shukla @ Radheshyam v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

30.01.2026 Item No.28 Ct. No. 34 nb C.R.R. 2032 of 2025 With I.A. No. CRAN 1 of 2025 In the matter of: Radhesyam Shukla @ Radheshyam ..... Petitioners.

Mr. Soumyajit Das Mahapatra Ms. M. Sinha Ms. Upasana Banerjee .....For the Petitioners Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Aditya Tewari Mr. Rajdeep Sengupta .....For the O.P. No.2 Mr. Anand Keshari Mr. Dipankar Pramanick .....For the State In Re.

I.A. No. CRAN 1 of 2025 1.

A joint compromise application entered into by and between the parties has been filed in the revisional application which was filed for quashing of the proceeding lodged against him by the de facto complainant. Previously, a revisional application was filed by the petitioner for quashing of the proceeding, which was disposed of on merit and the prayer was not considered but, the de facto complainant was not represented before that Court. Subsequent thereto, this revisional application is filed by the petitioner again for quashing of the proceeding. During pendency of the revisional application, the parties have entered

into the joint compromise as the matter has been amicably settled by and between the parties. The report furnished before this Court on behalf of the Prosecution further disclosed that the victim lady recorded the statement on August 8, 2025, which also prima facie reveals that she has no complaint against the present petitioner, since there is a settlement and is not willing to proceed with the case.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of X... Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2258, where also the allegation was under Sections 376 (2)(n), 406 and 506 of the IPC, 1860 and the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and the High Court refused to quash the application on the ground of amicable settlement, which travelled before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the proceeding was quashed. 3.

Considering the fact of amicable settlement arrived at by and between the parties, another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon in the case of Madhukar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415, where also the complaint was lodged under Sections 376, 354-A, 354-D, 509 and 506 of the IPC and the parties arrived at a settlement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that since the complainant expressed her desire not to pursue the case and settle her personal love and is not willing to continue with the proceeding.

4.

Hence, the settlement is considered and the proceeding stands quashed as the continuation of the proceeding would serve no fruitful purpose.

5.

Accordingly, the application being, I.A. No. CRAN 1 of 2025 stands disposed of and the proceeding pending before the learned Court is hereby quashed and set aside.

6.

Department is directed to forward this order to the concerned lower court for taking necessary action.

7.

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)