1 2025:CGHC:4974 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2598 of 2018 Dr. Chandrabhan Singh Banjare S/o Late J. R. S. Banjare Aged About 55 Years Working As Medical OfÏcer, Community Health Center, Nikum, District Durg Chhattisgarh Permanent R/o Village And Post Manora, Block And Tahsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Smt. Chiralekha Banjare W/o Dr. Chandrabhan Singh Banjare R/o Village Usur, Awapalli, Vivekanand Nagar, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh At Present Address New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. V.R. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shubham Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the private respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing the entire proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raipur (C.G.), in criminal Case No. 844/2017, on the complaint lodged by the respondent. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 21.06.1995 and after marriage, the respondent came to the house of the petitioner for performing matrimonial obligation and out of their wedlock, two children namely Kriti aged about 22 years and son namely Harshraj aged about 17 years have been born. Due to domestic dispute between the petitioner and respondent, they both are living separately since last 12-13 years. The aforesaid children of petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Raipur and vide order dated 05.08.2016, the learned Family Court has allowed interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 5000/- each to the said Harshraj and Kriti. The respondent had filed a report before the Police Station, Dhamtari against the petitioner and the FIR bearing Crime No. 48/2005 was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 506 and 323 of IPC and the petitioner was prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 173/2008 before the learned trial Court (C.G.) and on 29.07.2009, the learned trial Court has passed final judgment. After more than 12-13 years from the date of living separately, on 24.06.2015 the respondent has filed complaint before the learned trial Court under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. After serving notice, the petitioner herein filed an objection regarding maintainability of the case under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on the ground of time barred, therefore, the proceedings under said provisions may be dropped. The respondent has objected the prayer of petitioner and submitted that the case under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the respondent is maintainable. After hearing both the parties, vide impugned order dated 14.11.2018, the learned trial Court has 3 summarily rejected the objection raised by the petitioner and fixed the case for reply on behalf of petitioner. The case has been registered under Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the maximum punishment for said offences are prescribed as 1 year. According to provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. the limitation for taking cognizance of such offence is prescribed as one year. Further according to the provisions of section 28 of Act, 2005, the provisions of Cr.P.C. is applicable in the proceedings of provisions of Act, 2005, therefore the limitation for filing application under the provisions of Act, 2005 is provided as one year, but in the instant case, the respondent has filed application under the provisions of Act, 2005 after more than 13 years from living separately, hence no cognizance of offence can be taken. From above facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the respondent has filed the instant complaint case, only to harass the petitioner and in abuse of process of law. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions embodied in Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act 2005, the proceedings initiated by the respondent before the learned trial Court is erroneous and deserves to be quashed. In the instant case, the respondent has filed application under the provisions of Act, 2005 after more than 13 years from living separately, hence no cognizance of offence can be taken. It is further submitted that the respondent is living separately from more than 12 years, which is evident from the judgment dated 29.07.2009 passed in Criminal Case No. 173/2008, which was registered on the basis of complaint of respondent. It is further submitted that it is evident that the respondent has filed the instant complaint case, only to harass the petitioner and in abuse of process of law. Therefore, the entire proceedings of the criminal case pending before the trial Court 4 against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the complaint lodged against the petitioner, it transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case showing the importance of the present petition to quash the entire proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Raipur (C.G.), in criminal Case No. 844/2017. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar