Sofia Haque v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC15 Jul 2026CRR/5063/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sofia Haque v. State of West Bengal & Anr.; CRR 5063 of 2025; CRAN/1/2025; quashing of criminal proceeding under Section 528 BNSS; Sections 66/66C/67 read with Section 43, Information Technology Act 2000; Section 509 IPC; Cyber Police Station Kolkata Case No. 66 dated 29.06.2019; GR(S) Case no. 773 of 2019; Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta; charge-sheet; amicable settlement between petitioner and de facto complainant; withdrawal of de facto complainant's support; bleak probability of conviction; non-compoundable offence; refusal of quashment counter-productive; cyber crime; abusive social media messages.

What did the court decide?

CRR 5063 of 2025 stands allowed; the impugned criminal proceeding, GR(S) Case no. 773 of 2019, presently pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta, is quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Sofia Haque Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned criminal proceeding (GR(S) Case no. 773 of 2019) against the petitioner should be quashed, given that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, both the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 have prayed for quashment, and the State's position is that the offence is non-compoundable.

¶¶16

Court's answer

The de facto complainant has decided not to support the imputations levelled in the complaint during trial; consequently, the probability of conviction of the petitioner is bleak even if the trial is allowed to proceed (the concluding words of this sentence appear at the start of the succeeding passage due to the page break).

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

Where the parties have amicably settled their dispute and both the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 have prayed for quashment, refusing the prayer for quashment solely on the ground that the offence is non-compoundable may become counter-productive.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

In the interest of the parties' future peaceful life, the impugned criminal proceeding should be quashed invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court — CRR 5063 of 2025 (with IA No. CRAN/1/2025), decided 15.07.2026: Allowed; impugned proceeding GR(S) Case no. 773 of 2019, pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta, quashed under Section 528 of the BNSS. Origin: complaint by opposite party no. 2 alleging receipt of abusive social-media messages allegedly posted by the petitioner; Cyber Police Station Kolkata Case No. 66 dated 29.06.2019 registered under Sections 66/66C/67 read with Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code; charge-sheet thereafter submitted against the petitioner. During pendency, the parties amicably settled their dispute and, through connected application CRAN/1/2025, both the petitioner and the de facto complainant (opposite party no. 2) prayed for quashment; the de facto complainant, who appeared through virtual mode, stated she did not want to proceed and would not support the imputations during trial, upon which the Court found the probability of conviction bleak even if the trial proceeded. Although State counsel submitted that the offence is non-compoundable, the Court held that refusing quashment solely on that ground would be counter-productive and, in the interest of the parties' future peaceful life, quashed the proceeding. No precedent was cited; no monetary quantum involved.

¶1

15.07.2026

¶2

Serial no. 07 [Srimanta] Ct. No. - 29

¶3

IA No.:CRAN/1/2025 in

¶4

CRR 5063 of 2025

¶5

SOFIA HAQUE -VS-

¶6

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

¶7

Mr. Shatadru Lahiri, Ms. Pallavi Ray, Advocates … … For the Petitioner. Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. P.P., Mr. Shataroop Purkayastha, Advocate ……For the State. Mr. K. Kashyap, Advocate ……For the Opposite Party No. 2.

¶8

The instant complaint has been lodged by opposite party no. 2 herein alleging, inter alia , that she received abusive messages from social media which was allegedly posted by the present petitioner. Pursuant to said complaint, Cyber Police Station Kolkata Case No. 66 dated 29.06.2019 was registered under Sections 66/66C/67 read with Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 509 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner.

¶9

During pendency of the instant proceeding, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and the parties being desirous of leading their life peacefully have come to an amicable settlement by way of which they have put to rest

¶10

¶11

all their disputes which had arisen due to certain misunderstanding.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the amicable settlement, the de facto complainant does not want to continue further with the impugned proceeding and to that extent the petitioner and the de facto complainant have filed one connected application being CRAN/1/2025. She further submits that further continuance of the impugned proceeding shall be mere abuse of the process of the Court.

¶13

De facto complainant appeared today through virtual mode and submits that she does not want to proceed further with the present criminal proceeding, as they have amicably settled their dispute and therefore she prays for dropping the criminal proceeding. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the offence is noncompoundable.

¶14

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and both opposite parties and also upon hearing the de facto complainant who appeared through virtual mode duly identified by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner, I find that the de facto complainant has decided not to support the imputations leveled in the complaint during trial and as such probability of conviction of the present petitioner is

¶15

¶16

bleak, even if the trial is allowed to proceed. It further appears that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and they have filed a connected application to that extent and both petitioner and opposite party no. 2 have prayed for quashment of the proceeding and as such, if the prayer for quashment made by them is refused only on the ground that the offence is non-compoundable, then it may become counter-productive and as such I find that in the interest of their future peaceful life, this is a fit case where the impugned criminal proceeding should be quashed invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

¶17

CRR 5063 of 2025 thus stands allowed. The impugned proceeding being GR(S) Case no. 773 of 2019, presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta is hereby quashed.

¶18

All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of the Calcutta High Court.

Sofia Haque v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sofia Haque 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

Case details

Similar cases

Sanchita Panchadhyainee Parua Vs Goutam Panchadhyai and Another

Mamtaj Begum @ Mamtaj Begum Laskar and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Erram Fatema Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Chittaranjan Jana Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Noor Ali @ Bakor and Others Vs the State of West Bengal

Ganesh Shaw and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.