Shib Narayan Paswan@Shiv Narayan Paswan v. The State Of West Bengal And ANR
17.06.2026 Serial no. 35 Ct. No. 5 PIYA CRR 206 of 2026 + IA No.: CRAN 1 of 2026 Shib Narayan Paswan @ Shiv Narayan Paswan Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Rajesh Kr. Sharma Mr. Salim Hussain Ms. Anamika Bhat Mr. Jyoti Kri Gupta ........for the Petitioner Mr. Bickey Sharma Mr. Manish Lal ......... for the de facto complainant Mr. Avrajyoti Das, APP Mr. Gobinda Ghosh ............. For the State 1.
The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioner arising out of Pradhan Nagar Police Station Case No. 341 of 2026 dated 17.05.2026 and Special POCSO Case No.
of under Sections 69/79/351(2) (3)/61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1687 of 2026, presently pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Siliguri, DistrictDarjeeling. 2.
CRAN 1 of 2026 filed, is a joint application on affidavit stating that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement in the present case and the
complainant/opposite party does not have any grievance if the proceedings in the present case is quashed in respect of the petitioner.
3.
The case of the de facto complainant herein is that:- The complainant has a long-standing love relationship with one Shib Narayan Paswan. The alleged person several times engaged in physical relationships with her under the false promise of marriage. From the year of 2024 to 2026 the alleged person even invited her to his own home to continue this physical intimacy. Furthermore, promising to marry her, they went to court to fill a marriage registration Form in which both of them signed without actually proceeding to the court. However, on 16.05.2026 was fixed for their final marriage registration. Accordingly, when the complainant tried to contact with him but was unable to do and then on the same day at about 09:00 hrs the complainant went to the said Shib Narayan Paswan's house, where the alleged refused to marry her. Moreover, his mother namely Niru Paswan subjected to torture upon the complainant and use abusive language and threatened her to make her private photographs viral.
4.
A Three Judge Bench of the Court in (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 303, Gian Singh vs State of Punjab and
another has cleared the position in respect of the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in para 61 of the judgment, which is reproduced here in:- "The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus : the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute.
criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
5.
In Anita Maria Dias & Anr. vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 290.
The Court held:- (a) Offences which are predominant of civil character, commercial transaction should be quashed when parties have resolved their dispute.
(b) Timing of settlement would be crucial for exercise of power or declining to exercise power (stage of proceedings).
6.
In Madhukar & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415, decided on July 14, 2025, the Supreme Court held:- "5. It is brought to our attention that both parties have categorically taken the stand before this Court that they have resolved their disputes amicably and are desirous of moving on with their lives. The complainant in the 2nd FIR, now married and residing with her husband, has expressed that continuation of the prosecution would cause further disruption in her personal life and that she has no wish to support the charges or pursue the matter any further.
6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature.
Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case."
7. The joint application being CRAN 1 of 2026 filed by the parties clearly shows that an amicable settlement and compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the complainant does not wish to proceed with the criminal case against the petitioner, being Pradhan Nagar Police Station Case No. 341 of 2026 dated 17.05.2026 and Special POCSO Case No. 75 of 2026 under Sections 69/79/351(2) (3)/61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1687 of 2026, presently pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Siliguri, District-Darjeeling.
8. From the materials on record, it appears, that dispute in the present case arises out of a private and personal dispute. The dispute is personal in nature. The parties have now resolved their entire dispute by way of a compromise/settlement on affidavit and as such the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak
and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice could be caused to them by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the complainant, as in the words of the Supreme Court in (Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, (Supra)).
9. As such, this court is of the view that it would be unfair and contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceedings which would tantamount to abuse of process of law in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties in respect of their dispute and to secure the ends of justice it would be prudent to quash the proceedings in the case as prayed for.
10. The revisional application being CRR 206 of 2026 is accordingly allowed, on compromise.
11. The proceedings in Pradhan Nagar Police Station Case No. 341 of 2026 dated 17.05.2026 and Special POCSO Case No. 75 of 2026 under Sections 69/79/351(2) (3)/61 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1687 of 2026, presently pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Siliguri, District-Darjeeling, is hereby quashed on compromise.
12. All connected Applications, if any, stands disposed of.
13. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
14. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.
15. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)