Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1344 (CAL)

ABHIJIT CHATTERJEE v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

WPA/5811/2026 · 2026-03-18

Saugata Bhattacharyya

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

13 rkd 18.03.2026 Ct.05 W.P.A. 5811 of 2026 Abhijit Chatterjee -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Avinaba Patra, Ms. Leena Mukherjee ….for the petitioner. Ms. Rama Halder, Mr. Samrat Pal ….for the State. Mr. Monish Banerjee ….for the respondent no.6. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that though there is marital discord between the petitioner and his wife being respondent no.5 but some gold ornaments were given by the petitioner to the respondent no.5 and respondent no.5 has misused those ornaments. 3. Petitioner prays for direction upon the concerned police authorities to provide protection and to protect gold ornaments. 4. Learned advocate representing the State respondents has submitted a communication dated 15th March, 2026 of Inspector-in-Charge, Baranagar PS and same is taken on record. 5. It is disclosed in the said communication dated 15th March, 2026 that on enquiry respondent no.5 disclosed to the police authorities in recent years petitioner contacted the respondent no.5 and in an attempt to restore marital relationship had voluntarily gifted certain gold ornaments to her despite reluctance of respondent no.5 to resume matrimonial cohabitation. 6. It is also disclosed in the said communication that respondent no.5 pledged those ornaments with Muthoot Finance for obtaining loan to meet the educational expenses and maintenance of her son. 7. As per 15th March, 2026 communication there was an allegation made by the petitioner against respondent no.5 of assault but on enquiry it was found by the police authorities that such allegation is not substantiated. 8. From the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking note of the contents of communication dated 15th March, 2026 it is found that petitioner gave certain gold ornaments to the respondent no.5 for the reasons best known to the petitioner and if such ornaments are misused by the respondent no.5 as alleged in this writ petition by providing police protection the issue cannot be resolved. 9. If petitioner has grievance relating to misuse of gold ornaments given by him to the respondent no.5 he needs to approach appropriate forum in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Copy of the communication dated 15th March, 2026 2 is made over to the learned advocate representing the petitioner. 12. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings. (Saugata Bhattacharyya, J.) 3