Cran No. 1 of 2025 · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SHABBAR RASHIDI
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 161, 164, 397, 401, 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 406, 498A
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ss. 3, 4
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. CRR 3549 of 2025 along with connected application being CRAN/1/2025 is disposed of. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
Judgment
Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Dutt, Advocate Mr. Sourat Mondal, Advocate …for the petitioners Mr. Debashis Roy, Ld. P.P. Mr. Saryati Datta, Advocate Ms. Dhanashree Biswas, Advocate …for the State
Report submitted on behalf of the State be taken on record.
The instant revisional application seeking quashing of Ultadanga Police Station Case No. 93 dated June 30, 2024 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Pursuant to this Court’s order dated September 10, 2025 and September 17, 2025, the de facto complainant has recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in addition to Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, de facto complainant states that she wants to withdraw the case.
State is represented. 2
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners also submits that, there are several proceedings pending between the parties and Memorandum of Understanding has been signed in between the parties with regard to the disposal of all such proceedings.
In such circumstances and in view of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the de facto complainant the proceedings in connection with Ultadanga Police Station Case No. 93 dated June 30, 2024 is quashed.
CRR 3549 of 2025 along with connected application being CRAN/1/2025 is disposed of. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.