Allowed¶25

Nayan Subedi v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC3 Mar 2025CRR/78/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR/proceeding; New Jalpaiguri Police Station case no. 20 of 2017; G.R. case no. 20 of 2017; Sections 417/493/376 IPC; false promise of marriage; subsequent marriage between accused and defacto-complainant; amicable settlement; non-compoundable offence; counter-productive refusal; no reasonable likelihood of conviction; abuse of process; ends of justice; Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench Jalpaiguri; CRR 78 of 2025; CRAN 1 of 2025; CRAN 2 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

The proceeding being New Jalpaiguri Police Station case no. 20 of 2017 dated 13th January, 2017 corresponding to G.R. case no. 20 of 2017 stands quashed; CRR 78 of 2025 allowed; CRAN 1 of 2025 and CRAN 2 of 2025 disposed of. ¶25

Nayan Subedi Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceeding being New Jalpaiguri Police Station case no. 20 of 2017 dated 13th January, 2017 under Sections 417/493/376 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Where on facts there is no reasonable likelihood of the accused/petitioner being convicted of the offence alleged, and further continuance of the proceeding would be a mere abuse of process of court because the wife no longer supports the imputations made in the FIR, the prayer for quashing is required to be allowed for the ends of justice.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Quashing may be allowed notwithstanding that the offence is not compoundable, where the parties have amicably settled, the accused has married the defacto-complainant and they live peacefully as husband and wife, since refusal of such settlement may become counter-productive for the parties.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri (Appellate Jurisdiction); CRR 78 of 2025 with CRAN 1 and CRAN 2 of 2025; decided 3.3.2025 by Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. The petitioner sought quashing of New Jalpaiguri Police Station case no. 20 of 2017 dated 13th January, 2017 under Sections 417/493/376 IPC, founded on an allegation of physical relationship on a false promise of marriage followed by refusal to marry. Pursuant to an amicable settlement, the petitioner married the defacto-complainant in 2018 and they live peacefully as husband and wife; recorded statements called for by the court's earlier order dated 18.2.2025 confirmed this, the State did not oppose, and the victim was present in court. Held: quashing is warranted even though the offence is not compoundable, since refusing the settlement may prove counter-productive, there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction, and continuance would be a mere abuse of process where the wife no longer supports the FIR imputations. The police case and corresponding G.R. case no. 20 of 2017 were quashed; the revision was allowed and the CRAN applications disposed of.

¶1

4 3.3.2025 sb

¶2

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

¶3

In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Jurisdiction

¶4

CRR 78 of 2025 With CRAN 1 of 2025 CRAN 2 of 2025

¶5

Nayan Subedi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

¶6

Mr. Sayan De Ms. Esha Acharya Mr. Sampad Das …for the petitioner

¶7

Ms. Avipsha Dutta Roy …for the O.P. no. 2

¶8

Mr. Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. APP Mr. Ujjawal Luksom …for the State

¶9

Re: CRR 78 of 2025 With

¶10

CRAN 1 of 2025 CRAN 2 of 2025

¶11

A report containing the statement of defacto-complainant and

¶12

the brother of the defacto-complainant namely, Abhimanyu Sharma, is taken on record.

¶13

The petitioner herein has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being New Jalpaiguri Police Station case no. 20 of 2017 dated 13^th January, 2017 under Section 417/493/376 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

In the first information report, it has been alleged that on the false promise of marriage, the victim has made physical relationship with the petitioner and thereafter, since the petitioner

¶15

¶16

refused to marry, the first information report has been lodged by

¶17

the defacto-complainant/victim.

¶18

However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by filing the application being CRAN 1 of 2025, that the entire dispute between the parties have been settled and pursuant to such amicable settlement by both the parties, the petitioner herein married the defacto-complainant in the year 2018 and presently, they are living peacefully together as husband and wife.

¶19

This court in its earlier order dated 18.2.2025, was pleased to call for a report from the prosecution agency and Mr. Luksom, learned counsel for the State today submitted aforesaid two recorded statements which discloses that the parties entered into matrimonial relationship and at present, they are residing peacefully as husband and wife.

¶20

Mr. Luksom, on behalf of the State submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and as such, the State does not want to stand in their way of leading peaceful future matrimonial life.

¶21

Victim is also present in court today physically.

¶22

Considering the fact that the victim has made a statement that she had married the petitioner herein and presently living peacefully as husband and wife and that refusal of such amicable settlement merely on the ground that the offence is not compoundable, may become counter-productive for the parties, and that on facts, it is noticed that there is no reasonable likelihood of the accused/petitioner being convicted of the offence alleged and that further continuance of the present proceeding

¶23

¶24

would be mere abuse of process of court where the wife no longer supporting imputations made in the FIR, the prayer for quashing of the proceeding is required to be allowed, for the ends of justice.

¶25

In such view of the matter, the present proceeding being New Jalpaiguri Police Station case no. 20 of 2017 dated 13^th January, 2017 corresponding to G.R. case no. 20 of 2017 stands quashed.

¶26

CRR 78 of 2025 is allowed. In view of disposal of main application, CRAN 1 of 2025 and CRAN 2 of 2025 are also disposed of.

¶27

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶28

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Nayan Subedi v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayan Subedi v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritesh Soni Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Suresh Rajbanshi Vs State of West Bengal

Sk Abdul Jalil Vs Jyostanara Bibi and Anr.

Anna Sarkar Vs Bipul Sarkar and Ors.

Amrit Pradhan and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Srinwanti Dey Das Vs Saurav Das and Ors.