Allowed¶10

Sajal Das and Others v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC22 Jul 2026CRR/1053/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, 2026 — quashing of matrimonial criminal case (Sections 498A, 323, 406 r/w 34 IPC) after amicable settlement; inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Section 482 CrPC, 1973; quashment of non-compoundable Section 498A proceeding post memorandum of understanding dated 10.10.2025; de facto complainant withdrawing support; general and omnibus allegations; chargesheet already filed; Baguihati Police Station Case No.529 of 2017; G.R. Case no.2433 of 2017 before CJM Barasat, North 24 Parganas; ends of justice; abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Revisional application allowed; impugned proceeding G.R. Case no.2433 of 2017 (Sections 498A, 323, 406 r/w 34 IPC) quashed; CRR 1053 of 2026 along with CRAN 1 of 2026 disposed of. ¶10

Sajal Das and Others Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revisional application allowed; impugned proceeding G.R. Case no.2433 of 2017 (Sections 498A, 323, 406 r/w 34 IPC) quashed; CRR 1053 of 2026 along with CRAN 1 of 2026 disposed of.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceeding being G.R. Case no.2433 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 read with Section 34 IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties and the de facto complainant's decision not to support the imputations in the complaint.

¶1

Court's answer

The dispute is purely matrimonial and private in nature; the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside Court, the de facto complainant has decided not to support the imputations levelled in the complaint, and as such the chance of conviction at the end of trial is bleak.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The statements available in the case diary are general and omnibus in nature and no specific allegation has been attributed against any of the petitioners constituting the offence alleged in the complaint.

¶8

Key takeaways

When both sides pray for quashment, refusal on the ground that Section 498A is a non-compoundable offence may become counterproductive; considering future peaceful coexistence, the Court found this a fit case to quash the proceeding to secure the ends of justice under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 / Section 482 CrPC, 1973.ratio¶9
The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case no.2433 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 read with Section 34 IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, arising out of Baguihati Police Station Case No.529 of 2017 dated 25.07.2017, is hereby quashed.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision (CRR 1053 of 2026 with CRAN 1 of 2026) under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 CrPC, 1973 — High Court at Calcutta (Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) quashed G.R. Case no.2433 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 read with Section 34 IPC, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas, arising out of Baguihati Police Station Case No.529 of 2017 dated 25.07.2017. Petitioner no.1 had married the opposite party no.2 on 22.04.2016; investigation had culminated in a chargesheet, but the parties thereafter amicably settled their matrimonial dispute under a memorandum of understanding dated 10th October, 2025, and the de facto complainant declined to support the imputations in the complaint. Finding the dispute purely matrimonial and private, the case-diary statements general and omnibus with no specific allegation against any petitioner, and the prospect of conviction bleak, the Court held that refusal to quash solely because Section 498A is non-compoundable would be counterproductive, and quashed the proceeding to secure the ends of justice. Application and accompanying CRAN disposed of.

¶1

22.07.2026

¶2

Sl. No. DL16 Court No. 29

¶3

Asraf, A.R.(Ct.)

¶4

In the High Court at Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side

¶5

Case No.

¶6

CRR1053 of 2026 with

¶7

CRAN 1 of 2026

¶8

In Re : An application under Section 528of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

-AND-

In the matter of :

SAJAL DAS & ORS.

…… Petitioners

For the Petitioners :

¶14

Mr. Arka Deb Bhattacharya

¶15

… Advocate

¶16

For the State :

¶17

Mr. SagarSaha Ms. NayanaMukhopadhyay

¶18

… Advocates

¶19

For the Opposite Party No.2 :

¶20

Mrs. Manaswita Mukherjee

¶21

… Advocate

¶22

1. In this application, the petitioner has prayed quashment of the proceeding being G.R. Case no.2433 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas.

¶23

2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned proceeding is a product of private dispute between the petitioners and the opposite party no.2. The petitioner no.1 got married to the opposite party no.2 on 22.04.2016. The

¶24

Page 2

¶25

petitioner nos.2 and 3 are the father-in-law and mother-inlaw of the opposite party no.2 and petitioner nos.4 and 6 are the brothers-in-law whereas petitioner nos.5 and 7 are the sisters-in-law of the opposite party no.2.

¶26

3. On the basis of a written complaint lodged by the opposite party no.2 on 25.07.2017, the aforesaid criminal proceeding was initiated. It is alleged in the complaint that from the next day of her marriage, she was subjected to mental torture by the petitioners and when she raised protest, she was subjected to physical assault by the mother-in-law and the other sisters-in-law who used to pressurize the opposite party no.2 for more dowry and to compel her to do all the household works. The investigation of the proceeding has already culminated into a chargesheet during pendency of the instant application.

¶27

4. However, at the intervention of the well-wishers and friends of the petitioners and the opposite party no.2, the entire dispute giving rise to the purported cause of action behind the institution of the instant case has been amicably settled between the parties. The parties have come to a settlement as the marriage existing between them has irretrievably broken down. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed any further with the prosecution of the instant case and to that extent, the petitioner no.1 on the one hand and the opposite party no.2 on the other hand have executed a memorandum of

¶28

Page 3

¶29

understanding on 10^th October, 2025 recording the settlement reached by and between the parties and a copy of which has been annexed with the instant application.

¶30

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submits that it is apparent that the impugned proceeding is a product of private dispute between the parties and the said private dispute has subsequently been amicably resolved by and between the said parties and no element of public policy is involved in the factual matrix of the proceeding impugned. Therefore, when the opposite party no.2 does not want to support the imputations levelled in the complaint and when she has expressed her desire not to prosecute the petitioners any further, continuance of the instant proceeding any further would be a futile exercise and would only lead to unnecessary wastage of Court’s valuable time. Therefore, she prayed for quashment of the proceeding.

¶31

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2/complainant on instruction submits that the de facto complainant being the ex-wife of the petitioner no.1 has already reconciled her private dispute with the petitioners and presently she is leading her life peacefully and has no allegation against any of the petitioners and, therefore, she also submits that since she has decided not to support the imputations levelled in the complaint, further continuance

¶32

Page 4

¶33

of the impugned proceeding would be mere abuse of the process of the Court.

¶34

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the case diary and leaves the prayer made by the petitioners to the discretion of the Court.

¶35

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and both the opposite parties, it appears that the dispute is purely matrimonial and private in nature. The parties have amicably settled their dispute outside Court and the de facto complainant has decided not to support the imputations levelled in the complaint and, as such, the chance of conviction at the end of trial is bleak. I have also gone through the statements available in the case diary, which appear to be general and omnibus in nature and no specific allegation has been attributed against any of the petitioners to constitute offence as alleged in the complaint.

¶36

9. Therefore, when both petitioners and opposite party no.2 have prayed for quashment of the criminal proceeding, In the event of refusal on the ground that Section 498A is a non-compoundable offence, it may become counterproductive. Therefore, considering their future peaceful coexistence, I find that this is a fit case where the proceeding should be quashed to secure the ends of justice, invoking this jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BharatiyaNagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 / Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶37

Page 5

¶38

10. In view of above, the instant revisional application is allowed. The impugned proceeding being G.R. Case no.2433 of 2017 under Sections 498A, 323 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas arising out of Baguihati Police Station Case No.529 of 2017 dated 25.07.2017 is hereby quashed.

¶39

11. CRR 1053 of 2026 along with CRAN 1 of 2026 are accordingly disposed of.

¶40

12. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶41

13. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

¶42

( Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. )

Sajal Das and Others v. the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajal Das and Others 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

Managing Director of Bajaj Finserv and Another Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Avijit Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Bimal Kumar Roy Vs State of West Bengal

Xxx and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Raju Roy @ Raju Ray Vs the State of West Bengal

Urmila Devi and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.