SUDIPTA DAS vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

This revisional application has been filed by the petitioner/ husband praying for quashing of the entire proceeding on the ground that the allegations levelled against them are absolutely false. According to him, the marriage between him and the complainant held on 05.08.2009. The opposite party/complainant is a quarrel some lady and always picked up quarrel with him and also with her family members unreasonably. Some family disputes cropped up due to such behaviour of the complainant. No property was entrusted to him by the opposite party/wife.

At the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite party contended that charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state submitted that some persons raised allegations against the present petitioner before the Investigating Officer and their statements were recorded. He also candidly admitted that some other witnesses had given a clean chit to the present petitioner.

However, in course of hearing of the argument, a proposal was floated from the petitioner, side to pay a lumpsum amount to the opposite party/wife. The wife responded to but there was a dispute regarding the quantum of such lumpsum amount. The present petitioner agreed to pay of Rs.10 lakhs at a time and on condition that the matrimonial disputes and this criminal case be withdrawn. The opposite party wife contended that she is already getting 10,000/- per month as maintenance from the present petitioner and that she wants to get the same amount by way of interest and only in that case she would withdraw all the litigations pending against the accused petitioner at her behest.

So, it appears to me that there is a chance of reconciliation otherwise such amount would not have been claimed by the opposite party wife. A lumpsum amount which would fetch Rs.10,000/- per month is little bit harsh.

It is very easy to dissolve a marital life but very difficult to unite. Since, there is a silver line of re-union, I am of the view that the matter be referred to a competent mediator, who would pursue the present petitioner and the wife to come to a settlement, according to their own terms and conditions. Therefore, the petitioner shall have to make a fixed deposit of such amount so that it yields Rs.10,000/- per month. Now the question is if the fixed deposit is made in favour of the opposite party/wife, then she would get practically the fixed deposit also. In such circumstances, the mediator shall persuade themselves whether the fixed deposit be made in the joint name on condition that no one can encash the same alone or not. Therefore, I would like to request the learned District Judge, Howrah to appoint a mediator from his panel, who would call the respective parties for a settlement. This process has to be done within three months from this date and the fees of the mediator would be Rs.2000 which should be borne by the present petitioner. The criminal revisional application stands disposed of with the direction as above. The liberty is given to the respective parties to apply afresh if the mediation does not succeed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court at once for information and taking necessary action.

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