Debmalya Mukherjee v. State Of West Bengal And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta CRR 2571 of 2025 With CRAN 1 of 2025 CRAN 2 of 2025 Debmalya Mukherjee Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner & : Mr. Apalak Basu Pro-forma respondent Mr. Kuheli Hazra Mr. Shounak Mondal For the O.P. 2/wife : Mr. Srinjay Sengupta Mr. Sourav Roy Mr. Ankush Ghosh Mr. Prasenjit Jana For the State : Mr. Debasish Roy, Ld. PP Mr. Koushik Kundu Ms. Ayana Dey Heard on : 11.09.2025 Judgment on : 11.09.2025 Jay Sengupta, J.:

This is an application praying for quashing of proceeding in C.G.R. Case No. 4913 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas arising out of Gariahat P.S. Case No. 313 dated 22.11.2018 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused being the petitioner/husband and the mother-in-law/added opposite party submits as follows. During pendency of the proceeding, a settlement and compromise was arrived at between the private parties of all disputes that had led to the registration of the FIR. Accordingly, two joint compromise applications being CRAN 1 2025 and CRAN 2 of 2025 were filed. As such, the impugned proceeding ought to be quashed on the ground of settlement and compromise.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant/wife supports such contentions of the husband and the mother-in-law and submits that all disputes that had led to the initiation of the criminal proceeding were settled and compromised between the private parties. The impugned proceeding should be quashed on such ground.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State relies on the case diary and submits as follows. On 02.08.2025 the de-facto complainant had given a statement before the Investigating Agency that all disputes were settled and she wanted to withdraw the criminal case started against the husband and the in-laws. There is no injury report present in the case diary either.

It appears that a settlement and compromise has indeed been arrived at between the private parties of all disputes that had led to the initiation of the impugned proceeding.

Therefore, the impugned proceeding is quashed on the ground of settlement.

With these observations, the revisional application and the connected applications being CRAN 1 of 2025 and CRAN 2 of 2025 are disposed of.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Jay Sengupta, J.) tbsr/14