1. The instant revisional application has been filed seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in connection with Malbazar P.S. Case No. 562 of 2017 dated October 26, 2017, under Sections 493/376/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 62 of 2026.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the case was initiated on October 26, 2017. Just after the institution of the case within a span of two months therefrom, petitioner No. 1 married the victim in December, 2017. Since then, the petitioner No. 1 as well as the opposite party have been living in matrimony, peacefully. Later on, investigation of the case ended in a charge-sheet under Sections 493/376/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 is the husband, petitioner No. 2 is the mother-in-law and petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the private party.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that although, investigation as ended in charge-sheet, nevertheless, the private party has been living in matrimony with petitioner No. 1 peacefully since 2017 when they were married. There are materials collected during investigation to corroborate that the petitioner No. 1 had married with the private opposite party and they have been living in matrimony, peacefully.

5. In support of such contention, learned Advocate for the petitioners relies upon 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1415 (Prabhakar versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr.).

6. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that it would be futile exercise if the criminal proceeding is allowed to proceed.

7. A joint petition filed on behalf of the petitioners as well as the private party stating, inter alia, that the private opposite party has been living happily in her matrimonial house with petitioner No.1 since after her marriage with petitioner No.1 in the year December, 2017.

8. State is represented. State refers to the materials in the case diary. From the materials in the case diary, more specifically the statement of the private opposite party i.e. the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

9. A perusal of such statement made by the private opposite party goes to show that she did not lodge any written complaint against the petitioners. It has been specifically stated by the private opposite party in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that she signed on a document as per instructions of her uncle. She was an illiterate lady. The writing on which she put her signature as per the instruction of her uncle was not read over to her. In such statement, the private opposite party clearly stated that she had no allegations against petitioner No.1. She was married to petitioner No.1 in last December. Such statement of the opposite party was recorded on November 2, 2017. In Prabhakar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

               “5. It is brought to our attention that both parties have categorically taken the stand before this Court that they have resolved their disputes amicably and are desirous of moving on with their lives. The complainant in the 2nd FIR, now married and residing with her husband, has expressed that continuation of the prosecution would cause further disruption in her personal life and that she has no wish to support the charges or pursue the matter any further.

               6. At the outset, we recognise that the offence under Section 376 IPC is undoubtedly of a grave and heinous nature. Ordinarily, quashing of proceedings involving such offences on the ground of settlement between the parties is discouraged and should not be permitted lightly. However, the power of the Court under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice is not constrained by a rigid formula and must be exercised with reference to the facts of each case.

               7. In the present matter, we are confronted with an unusual situation where the FIR invoking serious charges, including Section 376 IPC, was filed immediately following an earlier FIR lodged by the opposing side. This sequence of events lends a certain context to the allegations and suggests that the second FIR may have been a reactionary step. More importantly, the complainant in the second FIR has unequivocally expressed her desire not to pursue the case. She has submitted that she is now married, settled in her personal life, and continuing with the criminal proceedings would only disturb her peace and stability. Her stand is neither tentative nor ambiguous, she has consistently maintained, including through an affidavit on record, that she does not support the prosecution and wants the matter to end. The parties have also amicably resolved their differences and arrived at a mutual understanding. In these circumstances, the continuation of the trial would not serve any meaningful purpose. It would only prolong distress for all concerned, especially the complainant, and burden the Courts without the likelihood of a productive outcome.

               8. Therefore, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the categorical stand taken by the complainant and the nature of the settlement, we are of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only amount to abuse of process.

               9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order of the High Court dated 07.03.2025 is set aside. FIR No. 302 of 2023 and FIR No. 304 of 2023, along with all proceedings arising therefrom, including Sessions Case No. 29 of 2024, stand quashed.”

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances obtaining from the materials in the case diary as well as the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and also taking into account the stand taken by the petitioners and the opposite party by way of filing the joint petition on their behalf as well as in consideration of the fact that the private opposite party has been residing in matrimony with petitioner No.1, to my opinion, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process.

11. In consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as applying the ratio laid down in the case of Prabhakar (supra) the criminal proceedings in connection with Malbazar P.S. Case No. 562 of 2017 dated October 26, 2017, corresponding to Sessions Case No. 62 of 2026 is hereby quashed.

12. Consequently, C.R.R. No. 274 of 2026 is disposed of. Connected applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

13. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.