1 2025:CGHC:15058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 980 of 2025 1 - Chinmay Das S/o Late Chitranjan Das Aged About now 46 Years Maintenance Manager, J.S.W. Steel, Bailari, Karnataka, R/o Chitranjan Das, Kumarghat, Ratiyabadi, Kumharghat Tripura ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Torwa, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri GL Uike, PL. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 28/03/2025 1. This Cr.M.P has been preferred against the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Special Railway Magistrate/JMFC, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Criminal Case AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.03.29 15:29:07 +0530 2 No.93/2017, whereby application preferred by the petitioner for closing the case on the ground that prosecution has not been able to produce evidence in eight years has been dismissed. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that marriage of complainant/wife and petitioner/husband was solemnized on 12.06.2008 through a marriage bureau namely Bharat Matrimony. Thereafter in the month of February, 2016 i.e. after 8 years of the marriage, complainant filed a complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur stating that the petitioner has harassed her for want of dowry (car). An allegation has also been made that petitioner solemnized marriage with the complainant without dissolution of earlier marriage. Thereafter, case was registered in which First Information Report was lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 495, 496, 294, 506-B, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Petitioner was arrested and was subsequently granted bail by the competent Court. The Case was fixed for evidence on 28.10.2017 but the same could not be completed. Petitioner filed the subject application for closing the case which was dismissed by the order impugned. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was fixed for evidence on 28.10.2017, however till date, it has not been completed. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is working as a ‘Maintenance Manger’ in J.S.W Steel, Bailari, Karnataka and he is facing trauma of prolonged litigation, 3 therefore he may be protected under inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would support the order impugned. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Having regard to the submission of learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the case is at evidence stage, this Court is of the view that impugned order neither suffers from illegality nor from any perversity. 7. In the result, this Petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. However, considering the fact that the case is pending for the last 8 years, the concerned trial Court is directed to decide Criminal Case No.93/2017 expeditiously, preferably within a period of 1 year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Avinash