Nachhi Bibi @ Nachi Bewa Vs the State of West Bengal

07.07.2026 Serial no. 24 [Srimanta] Ct. No. - 29

IA No.:CRAN/1/2026, CRAN/2/2026 in

CRR 852 of 2026

In re : An Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sureaksha Sanhita, 2023

¶5

-And-

¶6

In the matter of : NACHHI BIBI @ NACHI BEWA & ORS.

¶7

… … Petitioners

¶8

Mr. Purnima Halder,

¶9

Mr. Mehnaz Rahaman, Advocates

¶10

… … For the Petitioners. Mr. Sujan Roy, Advocate

¶11

……For the de facto complainant. Mr. Subrata Mukherjee, Mr. Sanjib Das, Advocates

¶12

…….For the State.

¶13

Report submitted by the State is taken on record.

¶14

In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashment of the proceeding being G.R. Case No. 2197/2024 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour.

¶15

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that during the tenure of conjugal relationship in between the de facto complainant and her husband, who is not the petitioner herein, raised a number of grievances against her in-laws/family members in connection with matrimonial dispute. It is alleged in the

¶16

2

¶17

complaint that on 28.05.2024 at about 10:00 A.M. all the accused persons including the husband of the de facto complainant and brother of the de facto complainant had driven out the de facto complainant after assaulting her physically.

¶18

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid proceeding, learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegation against the present petitioners are omnibus in nature and no specific role has been attributed against any of the petitioners in connection with commission of the alleged offence. However, during pendency of the instant proceeding, the de facto complainant and the present petitioners have amicably settled their dispute and the de facto complainant is presently residing at her matrimonial house along with her in-laws and she has decided not to support her imputations leveled in the complaint against the present petitioners. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that further continuance of the impugned proceeding would tantamount to nothing but mere abuse of the process of the Court.

¶19

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 submits that de facto complainant is residing at her matrimonial house and she has settled the dispute with the petitioners and as such she has decided not to support the

¶20

3

¶21

imputations leveled against the de facto complainant during trial.

¶22

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed such prayer for quashment and contended that principal accused, Mir Kasem Halder and other two accused persons, namely, Moinuddin Halder and Morselim Halder are still absconding in this case. A prima facie charge under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code has been established against the FIR named accused persons and, therefore, the parties should go for trial to unearth the truth.

¶23

I have considered submission made on behalf of both the parties. It appears from the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 that the opposite party no. 2 is presently leading her matrimonial life peacefully with her in-laws at her matrimonial house and she has also decided not to support the imputations leveled against the petitioners and as such I find that the chance of conviction of the present petitioners is bleak, even if the proceeding is allowed to linger any further. Moreover, if the prayer for quashment made by both opposite party no. 2 and the petitioners is refused on the ground that some of the allegations are noncompoundable in nature, it may become counter-productive to their interest of mutual peaceful future co-existence.

¶24

4

¶25

Considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is matrimonial and private in nature and that the said dispute has been amicably settled, I find that further continuance of the instant proceeding qua the petitioners shall be mere abuse of the process of the Court.

¶26

In view of above, CRR/852/2026 is allowed.

¶27

9. The impugned proceeding being GR Case No. 2197/2024 arising out of Usthi Police Station Case NO. 298/2024 dated 04.07.2024 under Sections 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code presently pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Diamond Harbour is hereby quashed qua the petitioners, namely, Nachhi Bibi @ Nachi Bewa,

¶28

Rangila Khatun @ Rangina Khatun, Morselim Halder and Mostakin Halder.

Nachhi Bibi @ Nachi Bewa v. the State of West Bengal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nachhi Bibi @ Nachi Bewa v. the State of West Bengal

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

Tutul Majumder @ Suraj Majumder and Others Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

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

Xxx and Another Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Debdas Sarkar Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Papia Mondal Sur @ Papia Mandal Sur @ Papia Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Mantu Barui Vs State of West Bengal