Shayan Bhattacharya and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

¶1

10.07.2026

¶2

Serial nos. 12 [Srimanta] Ct. No. - 29

¶3

IA No.:CRAN/1/2026 in

¶4

CRR 2109 of 2026

¶5

SHAYAN BHATTACHARYA & ORS. -VS-

¶6

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

¶7

Mr. Supriyo Das, Advocate … … For the Petitioners. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P., Mr. Shataroop Purkayastha, Advocate ……For the State. Mr. Purnendu Maity, Mr. Sunny Nandy, Mr. Yamini Tiwari, Advocates ……For the Private Respondent No. 2. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioners is taken on record.

¶8

Report submitted by the State dated 10.07.2026 is taken on record.

¶9

In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 6839/2025 under Sections 85/316(2)/74/352/3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24Parganas. The opposite party no. 2 herein being the de facto complainant lodged a written complaint against the petitioners being the husband and in-laws stating, inter alia , that few days after marriage the petitioner and other inlaws started inflicting torture upon the opposite party no. 2

¶10

2

¶11

and also abused her with filthy languages. On 11.06.2025 the opposite party no. 2 returned to her matrimonial house but she was not allowed to stay there. It was further alleged that all her valuable jewelleries were kept in the locker of petitioner no. 2 which she denied to hand over to the petitioner.

¶12

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and no specific overt act has been alleged against any of the petitioners. The allegation of entrustment of streedhan properties upon the petitioners have also not been substantiated during investigation. Therefore, Section 316(2) of BNS has also got no application in the present case.

¶13

However, during pendency of the proceeding good sense prevailed among the parties and they have amicably settled their dispute. The matrimonial tie in between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 has also been dissolved by way of a decree of divorce. The petitioner, therefore, submits that further continuance of the impugned proceeding would be mere abuse of the process of the Court. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, on instruction, submits that his client has amicably settled the dispute with the petitioners and decided not to support the imputations leveled in the

¶14

3

¶15

petition of complaint. He further submits that the impugned criminal proceeding may be quashed as prayed for by both of them. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed a report dated 10.07.2026 with a recorded statement of the de facto complainant where she stated that she wants to withdraw the case as she and her husband amicably settled the matter and that they have already dissolved their marital tie.

¶16

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and both the opposite parties, I find that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and as such opposite party no. 2 has decided not to adduce evidence against the petitioners in the proceeding and as such there is hardly any chance of conviction at the end of trial. Furthermore, I have also gone through the materials available in the case diary and it appears that the materials do not constitute offence as alleged against the petitioners as they are general and omnibus in nature and no specific role of any of the petitioners has been alleged nor has been substantiated during investigation. In such circumstances, if the prayer for quashment made by both opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner is refused, it may become counter-productive. Therefore, in the interest of future peaceful co-existence of the parties, I find that this is a fit case where the

¶17

4

¶18

proceeding is liable to be quashed invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶19

In view of above, CRR/2109/2026 along with connected application being CRAN/1/2026 are allowed.

¶20

The impugned proceeding being GR Case No. 6839/2025 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24-Parganas is hereby quashed.

¶21

(Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Shayan Bhattacharya and Others v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shayan Bhattacharya and Others v. 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

Savita Liladhar Vaswani Vs Ketan Dungarsi Nagrecha and Others

Spectrum Petromac Private Limited Vs M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. and Others

Arindam Kundu Vs Adeeti Biswas

Debasish Chatterjee Vs Ranjit Kumar Karmakar and Another

Sudipta Samanta Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Arjun Kumar Giri Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.