1 2025:CGHC:49713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1087 of 2019 1 - Manisha Pradhan D/o Mahendra Pradhan Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Salhetarai, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Premnath Pradhan S/o Late Panchanand Pradhan Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Salhetarai, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mahendra Pradhan S/o Late Meghnath Pradhan Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Durgpali, Police Station Basna, Chowki - Madarpur, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sajis Pradhan S/o Dashrath Pradhan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Rikhadadar, Police Station Sohra, Tahsil Pithaura, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 06/10/2025 1. The present CRMP has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), against the impugned order dated 05.04.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Criminal Revision No. H-16/2019, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioners against the order dated 14.11.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.10.16 11:43:19 +0530 2 First Class, Pithora, District Mahasamund in Criminal Complaint Case No. S- 384/2018, has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners are the accused persons in the Complaint Case No. S-384/2018 registered before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, instituted on the instance of the Respondent No. 2/complainant on 20.09.2018. The complainant filed a criminal compliant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the present petitioners for commission of the offence under Section 120-B, 420, 494, 497 and 506-II of IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that he is the husband of the accused No. 1 and their marriage was solemnized on 20.04.2016. The accused No.1 was having affair with some other boy before her marriage and she continued her relation with him even after her marriage, despite efforts made by the complainant she was not convinced, which culminated into dispute between them and ultimately the accused No. 1 left her husband and return back to her parents’ house on 18.04.2017. She lodged a dowry harassment case to the police. However, on being inquiry it was found false and closed. The complainant had filed an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court Saraipali, for Restitution of Conjugal Rights and in the meantime the accused No. 1 had also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance amount before the learned Family Court Mahasamund, Camp Court Saraipali. 3. In both the cases there was a settlement between the parties that the complainant shall pay the accused No. 1 Rs. 2,50,000/- as one time maintenance and then they will take divorce on mutual ground. It is also settled that the accused No. 1 will not claim any maintenance further in future. An agreement was also executed between them on 13.08.2017. The complainant had paid Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused No. 1 as per the settlement deed. However, instead of filing the application for divorce by 3 mutual consent, she fled away and had not turned up for filing of the said application before the learned Family Court. The complainant tried to convince her to file the application for grant of divorce by mutual consent basis and in the meantime he came to know on 29.03.2018 that the accused No. 1/wife is going to perform second marriage with the accused No. 2. When he informed the accused No. 2 the true facts and asked him not to marry with accused No. 1 before grant of any divorce between them, he also threatened him, which was reported by him on 30.03.2018 to the Police Station, Sakra. When the Police Station Sakra have not taken any action on his report, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund on 22.06.2018 and remainder application on 23.08.2018. When his complaint was given any heed, he filed the present complaint case. The applicant came to know that on 30.03.2018 the accused No. 1 has performed marriage with the accused No. 2 at Ramchandi Mandir, Gadfuljhar, knowing very well about the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and other accused persons assisted them in performing marriage, therefore, the complaint case has been filed. During the proceeding of the complaint case the learned trial Court has called the police report and after recording statement of the witnesses, the complaint case was registered on 14.11.2018 against the accused No. 1, 2, and 3/petitioners, for the offence under Section 420, 494, 506-II read with Section 120-B of IPC. The registration of the offence and complaint case against the petitioners was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in criminal revision which has been dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2019 holding that the registration of the complaint case is an interlocutory order and criminal revision is not maintainable, therefore, petitioners have filed the present criminal misc. petition challenging the order dated 05.04.2019. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the basis of allegation of the complaint case is that the accused No.1 had not complied with the 4 terms of the settlement and has not filed the application for grant of divorce by mutual consent In the subsequent occasion the accused No. 1 had filed relevant application and decree of divorce was also granted in favour of the parties vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 10A/2019 by the learned Family Court, Mahasamund. The application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was also withdrawn by the accused No. 1 on the ground of their compromise the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was also withdrawn by the complainant on the ground of compromise. Therefore, there is no reason for the complainant to prosecute the present complaint case as the parties have settled their dispute and the accused No. 1 has complied with the terms of the settlement. The continuation of the complaint case is an abuse of process of law as well as process of Court and the same liable to be quashed. 5. No one appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2 /complainant despite the notice served upon him. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State would supported the impugned order passed by learned Courts below. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition by the parties. 8. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant is that he married with the accused No. 1 on 20.04.2016. However, due to dispute between them she left her and returned to her parents’ house on 18.04.2017. The complainant has made an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the learned Family Court, Mahasamund, Camp Court Saraipali, and the accused No. 1 had also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the said Court. 9. Looking to the conflicting application filed by the parties, there was a settlement between them on 13.08.2017 an agreement was executed. As per the settlement the complainant was to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused No. 5 1 as one time maintenance amount and she would not claim any maintenance in future and the parties shall close their respective cases filed by them before the Court. In compliance thereof the complainant has paid Rs. 2,50,000/- on 13.03.2018 to the accused No. 1, but no application for divorce on mutual consent grounds was filed. 10. Considering the conduct of the accused No. 1 the complainant has filed the complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court on 20.09.2018 and after recording statement of the complainant the same was registered vide order dated 14.11.2018 and the process was issued to the accused persons/petitioners. When the complaint case was registered on 14.11.2018 and process was issued, the accused No. 1 had filed an application under Section 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, before the learned Family Court Mahasamund Camp Court, Saraipali vide Civil Suit No. 10A/2019. It appears that after registration of the complaint filed by the complainant the application for divorce was filed. 11. The petitioner has filed the copy of the agreement executed between the parties on 13.03.2018 which is annexed at page No. 23 along with the documents filed on 26.09.2025 through covering memo, it is relevant to quote the contents of the said agreement in this order. समक्ष पब्लिक नो टरी , सरीयप जि महासमद छ०ग० इकरीरीनोम ( विहा विच्छद ) श्री मती मनो षा प्रधानो पतिती स स प्रधानो 23 स तिती क ती विनोस रिरीखाददरी ती&मनो विनोस ग्राम दरुगप थानो ए तीहास बसनो जि महासमद छ.ग. पक्ष क्रम-क -एक स स प्रधानो विपती दशरीथा प्रधानो उम्र 30 स तिती क ती विनोस रिरीखाददरी थानो सकरी तीहास विपथा1री जि महासमद छ०ग० पक्ष क्रम-क – द म2 पक्ष क्रम-क एक श्री मती मनो षा प्रधानो, पक्ष कमक द स स प्रधानो क पक्ष म3 विनोम्नोनोसरी इकरीरी कथानो करीती हा- 1. यहा विक 21.04.2016 क मरी विहा पक्ष क्रमक द क सथा तिती री तिती रिरी स हाई था । 2. यहा विक हाम द नो7 पतिती पब्लि8नो क 9चारिरीक मतीभेद हा नो स हामरी 9विहाक नो सचारू रूप स चानो सभे नोहा= हा नो स हाम द नो 6 क> सहामतिती स विबनो विकस दब ए प्र भेनो क एक द?सरी अग अग रीहानो चाहाती हा2। 3. यहा विक हाम द नो7 क ब चा आ स क ई 9विहाक सबधा नोहा= रीहाग तीथा पक्ष क्रमक द अपनो मB स द?सरी विहा करी सकती हा9 औरी म2 भे अपनो मB स द?सरी विहा करी सकती हा?। एक द?सरी क 9विहाक नो परी हाम द नो7 दखा नोहा= दग3। 4. यहा विक पक्ष क्रमक द स म2 अपनो नो विनो&हा क लिए एकमश्ती रीशिश 2.50,000/- रु० अक्षरी द खा पचास हारी रू० प्रप्त करी चाक> हा? तीथा मझे विहा क समय मरी मयक 9विहाक उपहारी विदय था उस भे प्रप्त करी चाक> हा?। औरी मझे पक्ष क्रमक द स भेरीण प षाण क> रीशिश तीथा क ई 9विहाक उपहारी पनो शषा नोहा= हा9। म2 भेविष्य म3 पक्ष क्रमक द क सम्पतिती परी क ई हाक अतिधाकरी क> द नोहा= करू ग तीथा 9विहाक उपहारी मझे मयक स विम था उसक लिए द करीती हा? ती हा नोय मनो ग । 5. यहा विक हाम द नो7 क सयक्त हास्तीक्षरी स न्ययय म3 विहा विच्छद हाती आदनो पत्र विदय गय हा9 हा सहा ए स8य हा9। न्ययय म3 ब भे आश्यकती हा ग म2 उपब्लिस्थाती हा नो क लिए ती9यरी हा?। हाम उभेय पक्ष7 क ब चा री नोम हा चाक हा9 क ई विद शषा नोहा= हा9। 6. यहा विक हाम उभेय पक्ष विहा विच्छद क> तिOक्र प्रप्त करीनो क लिए स्तीत्र हा9 द नो7 क क ई आपलिP नोहा= हा ग ।" 12. On 30.03.2018 the accused No. 1 has performed marriage with the accused No. 2. Under the terms of the agreement dated 13.03.2018 executed between the accused No. 1 and the complainant, it can be considered that the accused No. 1 was under the bona fide impression that she had already taken divorce from her husband and a mutual agreement was executed between them to that effect and she was free to perform marriage with any other person and in that context she performed marriage with the accused No. 2. Subsequently, she filed an application for grant of divorce also on 15.05.2019 which has been allowed vide judgment dated 14.11.2019 and their marriage with the complainant was dissolved. Presently the said divorce decree is effective and she is residing with her husband i.e. accused No. 2. The ground raised by the complainant that despite obtaining Rs. 2,50,000/- as one time maintenance amount from him the accused No. 1 is not turning up for filing of the application for grant of divorce by which she cheated the complainant and all the accused persons had performed marriage and the accused No. 1 with the accused No. 2, is being diluted by the subsequent decree of divorce granted in favour of the parties and ultimately the purpose of the complaint would appear be served. 7 13. In view of the above, there is no reason to prosecute further the said complaint case for the alleged offence, and the parties are residing with their families peacefully. Any sort of interference in their family life by permitting the complainant to continue the complaint case would create more complication in their family life which may turn into multiplication of litigation. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 14.11.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, District Mahasamund is liable to be interfered with while invoking the provisions of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (528 of BNSS, 2023) and set aside the said order and to quash the proceeding of the complaint case. 15. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.11.2018 passed by learned trial Court in Complaint Case No. S-384/2018 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pithora, is set- aside and the proceeding of the said complaint case is hereby quashed. 16. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok