Allowed¶23

Shibnath Chatterjee and Others v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC1 Jul 2026CRR/2274/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashment of criminal proceeding under Section 528 BNSS; GR Case No. 866/2026 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia; offence under Section 498A described as non-compoundable; amicable settlement and reconciliation between spouses; de facto complainant (opposite party no. 2) withdrew support to imputations; police report dated 28.06.2026 of Nandigram Police Station; alleged strangulation/assault of 26.04.2026; ends of justice; CRR 2274 of 2026; CRAN 1/2026; petitioners SHIBNATH CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS; decided 01.07.2026 by Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.; no precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

CRR/2274/2026 along with CRAN/1/2026 allowed; the impugned proceeding in GR Case No. 866/2026 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia quashed. ¶23

Shibnath Chatterjee and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

CRR/2274/2026 along with CRAN/1/2026 allowed; the impugned proceeding in GR Case No. 866/2026 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia quashed.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceeding in GR Case No. 866/2026 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, notwithstanding that the offence under Section 498A is non-compoundable.

¶10

Court's answer

Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute and are presently residing peacefully as husband and wife, and both the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 have prayed for quashment, refusing quashment solely on the ground that the offence under Section 498A is non-compoundable may prove counterproductive to their future mutual peaceful co-existence.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Considering the future mutual peaceful co-existence of the parties, this is a fit case where the proceeding is to be quashed by invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to secure the ends of justice.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashment of matrimonial-cruelty proceeding (GR Case No. 866/2026, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia) under Section 528 BNSS — allowed. Opposite party no. 2 (de facto complainant) had complained that after marrying petitioner no. 1 she was tortured by all the accused, and that on 26.04.2026 petitioner no. 1 assaulted her, tried to kill her by strangulation and drove her out of the matrimonial house. During pendency the parties reconciled at the instance of relatives; a police report dated 28.06.2026 (ASI, Nandigram Police Station) recorded amicable resolution and the complainant's written declaration that she resides at her matrimonial house with no allegation against her husband or his family members. Both sides jointly prayed for quashment. Holding that refusal of quashment solely because the offence under Section 498A is non-compoundable 'may become counterproductive', and considering the parties' future mutual peaceful co-existence, the Judge found it a fit case and quashed the proceeding under Section 528 BNSS to secure the ends of justice. CRR 2274 of 2026 with CRAN 1/2026 allowed.

¶1

01.07.2026

¶2

Serial no. 21 [Srimanta] Ct. No. - 29

¶3

IA No.:CRAN/1/2026 in

¶4

CRR 2274 of 2026 In re : An Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sureaksha Sanhita, 2023

¶5

-And-

¶6

In the matter of : SHIBNATH CHATTERJEE AND OTHERS … … Petitioners

¶7

Mrs. Reshmi Khatun, Mr. Samir Mishra,Advocates … … For the Petitioners. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P., Mr. Sagar Saha, Ms. Nayana Mukhopadhyay, Advocates ……For the State. Mr. Arpayan Mukherjee, Ms. Sabrina Yasmeen, Advocates

¶8

…….For the Opposite Party No. 2.

¶9

1. The report submitted by Police dated 28.06.2026 is taken on record.

¶10

The petitioners herein have prayed for quashment of the proceeding in GR Case No. 866/2026 presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldia.

¶11

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that opposite party no. 2 herein made a complaint against the petitioners, inter alia, alleging that she got married with the petitioner no. 1 and after marriage all the petitioners/accused persons tortured her both physically and mentally and that her

¶12

¶13

husband had extra marital affair and on 26.04.2026 at about 9:00 A.M. the petitioner no. 1 with regard to some family issue assaulted the opposite party no. 2 and tried to kill her by strangulation and thereafter had driven her out of matrimonial house.

¶14

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 2 and 3 never pressurized the opposite party no. 2 or created any disturbance in leading her peaceful matrimonial life with her husband nor was she ever tortured by the present petitioners. They have been falsely implicated in the instant case. However, during pendency of the instant proceeding good sense prevailed among the parties and they have come forward to settle the dispute amicably at the intervention of relatives and well-wishers. At present, both the parties are leading their matrimonial life peacefully as husband and wife and I am also told that the de facto complainant is presently carrying. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of amicable settlement and in the interest of their future matrimonial life the proceeding may be quashed.

¶15

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party/de facto complainant submits that in view of amicable settlement arrived at by and between the parties the de facto complainant has decided not to proceed further with

¶16

¶17

the impugned proceeding. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on instruction, further submits that opposite party no. 2 has decided not to support the imputation leveled against the petitioners during trial in view of amicable settlement.

¶18

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State today placed a report dated 28.06.2026 sent by Assistant SubInspector, Nandigram Police Station which discloses that the matter between the parties has been amicable resolved and settled and the de facto complainant submitted a written declaration that she is presently residing at her matrimonial house along with her husband, father-in-lad and mother-in-law and that she has no allegation against her husband or any of his family members at present.

¶19

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and both the opposite parties, it appears that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and presently residing as husband and wife peacefully. It further appears that both petitioners and opposite party no. 2 have prayed for quashment of the proceeding. In such circumstances, if the prayer for quashment made by both the parties is refused only on the ground that offence under Section 498A is a non-compoundable offence, it may become counterproductive. Therefore, considering their future mutual peaceful co-existence, I find that this is a fit case where the

¶20

¶21

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

¶22