Gaurav Ravi Wankhede vs The State Of West Bengal And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3246 Cal

Form J(1)        IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction
                               Appellate Side


Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri



                             CRR 827 of 2023


                          Gaurav Ravi Wankhede
                                  Vs.
                      The State of West Bengal and Anr.



Mr. Kallol Mondal
Mr. Krishan Ray
Mr. Souvik Das
Mr. Shamsher Ansari
Mr. Ayan Mondal
            ..for the petitioner

Item No. M.L. 08.

Heard & Judgment on:           08.05.2023

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

The opposite party No.2 filed a complaint against the

petitioner/husband and other matrimonial relations in the

jurisdictional P.S. which resulted in initiation of Gariahat P.S. Case No.

204 of 2016 under Sections 498A/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code

corresponding to CGR Case No. 5356 of 2016. During investigation, it

is submitted by the Learned advocate for the petitioner that the

dispute between the husband and wife was amicably settled and as

per such settlement the petitioner paid huge amount of money which

the opposite party No.2 received executing money receipt.

Subsequently, on 1st May, 2018 the opposite party No.2 issued a

letter to the Investigating Officer stating, inter alia, that the dispute

has been amicably settled in view of a Memorandum of Understanding

executed by and between them. She also clearly stated in view of the

Memorandum of Understanding. On the basis of such letter police

submitted final report against the accused persons. However, the

opposite party No.2 filed a 'Naraji' petition stating, inter alia, that the

petitioner did not care to put his signature on the Memorandum of

Understanding and due to such refusal a case under Sections

498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code are proceeded against the

petitioners. Said 'Naraji' petition was allowed by the learned

Magistrate and a direction was passed for further investigation.

It is the prayer of the petitioner that further investigation

cannot be directed under the facts and circumstances of the case

where the petitioner has admittedly paid huge amount of money

against the receipt issued by the opposite party No.2.

However, this Court is of the view that settlement of the case

depends upon execution of MOU. The said MOU is not before this

Court. It is not clear whether the petitioner has performed his part of

obligation entirely or not.

Considering such circumstances of the matter, I do not find any

merit in the instant revision and accordingly, the instant revision is

summarily dismissed.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)