1 2025:CGHC:52898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1288 of 2025 Saurabh Shukla S/o Shri Vinod Shukla Aged About 34 Years R/o Flat No. B 604, Anugrah Residency, Police Station- Khamtarai, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Mahila Thana Raipur,district Raipur C.G. 2 - Ekta Shukla W/o Shri Saurabh Shukla Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 10,brahman Para Rajim, Tehsil- Rajim, District Gariyaband C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 30/10/2025 1. The applicant has filed the present Criminal Revision under Section 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2020 under Sections 498(A), 506, 406, 34 of the IPC, in Criminal Case No. 5547/2020 by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (C.G.) on 22.12.2022. 2 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Trial Judge acted with material irregularities and had passed the impugned order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2020. He further submits that to the best knowledge of the petitioner and the information received from different sources, it has been learnt by the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 has solemnized marriage with one Rahul Pandey at Maitri Nagar, Raipur. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is not maintainable because the Hon’ble Division Bench has passed an order dated 06.02.2025 in CRMP No. 61 of 2021 wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench has partly-allowed the application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. Also heard on I.A. No. 02/2025, application for condonation of delay. 5. The present petitioner had filed a CRMP No. 61 of 2021 wherein he prayed for the following relief: “It, is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the Final Report dated 22/27-7-2020 and FIR (First Information Report) dated 18.01.2020 bearing Cr. No. 8/2020 registered against the petitioners for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC, in the interest of justice.” 3 6. Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under: 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.— Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section. 7. In the present petition also, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Court of learned JMFC Raipur and the present petition has been filed after a delay of 1659 days. It appears that there is negligence and deliberate inaction on the part of the petition as such the petition is barred by delay and latches and is not liable to be maintained. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that if this Criminal Revision will be allowed at this stage, then it will be the abuse of process of law. Hence, it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima