SANDEEP CHANCHLANI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revisional Application, preferred by the petitioners (the husband and his parents), invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, 'BNSS'), praying for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Rabindranagar P.S. Case No. 166/2024. The said proceedings are founded upon a dispute fundamentally rooted in matrimonial discord, alleging commission of offenses primarily under Ss. 498A, 325, 354B, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Ss. 3 and 4 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The matter currently lies pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

(2.) The substratum of this application rests upon the unambiguous assertion, confirmed by both sides, that the parties have arrived at a comprehensive and irrevocable settlement inter se. This accord is formally documented in a duly notarized Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated May 24, 2025. This critical document delineates the terms of a full and final settlement, mandating the mutual withdrawal of all pending legal proceedings. Specifically, Paragraph 2(a) of the MOU stipulates that the parties "unconditionally and irrevocably withdraw all currently pending legal proceedings, including any and all FIR's, complaints, applications, or petitions filed by either party against the other before any police station, court, tribunal or legal authority, whatsoever." It is on the strength of this conclusive settlement that the petitioners seek the cessation of the impugned criminal proceedings.

(3.) Ms. Kanchan Jaju, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the primary colour and nature of the dispute being personal and private (a direct outcome of matrimonial discord), the comprehensive settlement effectively extinguishes the cause of action. To permit the continuation of the criminal proceedings, in this context, would constitute a patent abuse of the process of law and render the entire exercise a judicial futility.