1 2025:CGHC:41859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 79 of 2024 Dr. Sheikh Shahid S/o Late Sheikh Majid Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Bajrang Akhara, Behind Head Post Office, Chatapara, Bilaspur, Tahsil - Bilaspur And Civil and Revenue District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Smt. Shahina Tarannum D/o Iqbal Hussain Aged About 30 Years R/o Mudapar In Front Of Post Office Subhash Block, Secl Korba, Tahsil and District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 19.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Aman Ansari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 2641/2023, arising out of order dated 28.11.2023 passed by learned JMFC, District – Korba, in MJC No.07/2019, whereby the learned revisional Court rejected PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.22 19:34:46 +0530 2 the application for stay. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, along with Section 23 of the said Act, against the petitioner before the Court of J.M.F.C., Korba in January 2019. No documents in support of the case were filed, except the Nikahnama, and there was no mention of any other documents. The application for interim maintenance was rejected by the J.M.F.C., Korba in April 2022. The petitioner filed his reply along with relevant documents on 25.03.2021. The case was registered as M.J.C. No. 7/2019 and was fixed for recording the respondent’s evidence on several dates. However, the respondent repeatedly sought adjournments. Eventually, on 07.10.2023, the respondent filed her evidence by way of affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. No documents were filed along with this affidavit. The case was fixed for cross-examination of the respondent on 06.11.2023. Petitioner along with his senior counsel, was present for the said cross-examination. On that date, after the lunch break, the counsel for the respondent filed an application for taking documents on record, without stating any reason for the delay in filing, despite the fact that the documents were in the respondent’s possession since the inception of the case. Further, there was no mention of the provision under which the documents were being filed. Upon objection by the petitioner’s counsel, the respondent’s counsel added the title "Order 7 Rule 3 14 of the CPC" to the application. The petitioners submitted written arguments regarding the non-maintainability of the said application. However, the learned J.M.F.C. allowed the application by order dated 28.11.2023. The petitioners filed Criminal Revision No. 2641/2023, along with an application for stay of proceedings before the Trial Court on 06.12.2023. On 11.12.2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba (C.G.), while issuing notice to the respondent, did not call for the record of the Trial Court and also rejected the stay application.Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that no party has an unfettered right to file documents at any stage of its choosing, especially when the stage of evidence has already commenced. Allowing such documents at a belated stage, without just cause, defeats the principles of fair trial and procedural propriety. The revisional Court ought to have considered that the respondent's application for bringing documents on record, filed on the very date fixed for cross-examination, was not maintainable particularly in view of the fact that there was no reference to such documents either in the original application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act or in the respondent’s affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC. Entertaining such an application, without explanation for the delay, amounts to causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is respectfully submitted that 4 indulgence of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The learned revisional Court, while rejecting the application for stay, has erroneously observed that it has no power to stay the proceedings before the Trial Court, which is contrary to the settled position of law. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Court may be pleased to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.2023 is liable to be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 2641/2023, arising out of order dated 28.11.2023 passed by learned JMFC, District – Korba, in MJC No.07/2019, and he prays for dismissal of the present petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the orders of the trial Court as well as the revisional Court, it is clear that after considering all the materials and after applying mind the learned Additional Sessions 5 Judge (FTC), Korba, District – Korba (C.G.), has passed the impugned order dated 11.12.2023, whereby the learned revisional Court rejected the application for stay, as it appears that the petitioner has been lingering on the proceedings initiated against him by the respondent, and there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court as well as revisional Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti