JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in connection with C.P. case no. 539 of 2018 whereby and where under, learned JMFC, Bokaro has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 341 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act. 3. It is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant earlier filed Complaint Case no. 993 of 2017 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in respect of the offences which took place during the period 25.11.2013 to 30.10.2017 and the said complaint was filed on 01.11.2017. It is also the admitted case of the complainant that the consequent upon a settlement, the said complaint was withdrawn. 4. It is also the admitted case of the complainant that after withdrawal of the said case on 24.01.2018 or during the pendency of the said Complaint Case no. 993 of 2017, The petitioner never came in contact with the complainant and they have never lived together under one roof. The only allegation after institution of the Complaint Case no. 993 of 2017 is that on 14.01.2018, the co-accused, the father of the petitioner rang-up the complainant and told her that he is assuring the complainant that if the complainant withdraws the case, then her home will be settled but after withdrawal of the case, the father of the petitioner refused to talk in any manner. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of the court to the order and decree dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Family court, Bokaro in Original Suit no. 333 of 2022 by which the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant has been dissolved by decree of divorce on mutual consent. 6. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of the court to the order and decree dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Family court, Bokaro in Original Suit no. 333 of 2022 by which the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant has been dissolved by decree of divorce on mutual consent. 6. Relying upon the order of the Madras High Court in the case of V. Senthil Kumar and Another vs. The Director of Public Libraries Chennai and Others, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 937, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that therein Madras High Court has held that if an accused is acquitted as per Section 257 of CrPC, he cannot be tried once again in view of the bar under Section 300 of CrPC. It is next submitted that to the same effect is the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of N. Palanivelu vs. State Represented by the Forest Range Officer, Perambalur Range, Perambalur, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 930. 7. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Navneesh Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1680 that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the High Court may, within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR, if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted. 8. It is next submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner of either having caused any hurt, wrongfully restraining the complainant, treating the complainant with cruelty or demanding dowry after 30.10.2017, hence even if the entire allegation made against the petitioner in this complaint, are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences and respect of which, learned the JMFC has found prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 9. Learned Spl. 9. Learned Spl. PP fairly submits that once a complaint is withdrawn under Section 257 of the CrPC, the same will amount to acquittal of the accused and in view of Section 300 of the CrPC, a person cannot be tried in respect of which the complaint was filed in a subsequent case. 10. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that Section 257 of the CrPC, which reads as under:- “257 Withdrawal of complaint.—If a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in any case under this Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn.” (Emphasis supplied) Makes it abundantly clear that if the complainant satisfies learned Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint, against the accused, then the Magistrate may permit the complainant to withdraw the complaint and once the magistrate does so, the Magistrate shall have to acquit the accused against whom, the complaint is so withdrawn. In other words, it means that withdrawal of the complaint against an accused person results in acquittal of the accused person concerned. 12. Now the undisputed fact remains that the offences which took place between 25.11.2013 to 30.10.2017 in respect of which, complaint case no. 993 of 2017 was filed by the complainant in the court of CJM, Bokaro has been withdrawn and the consequence is that the petitioner who was the accused person of that case, has been acquitted by the said court. Now in view of Section 300 of the CrPC, which reads as under:- “300. 993 of 2017 was filed by the complainant in the court of CJM, Bokaro has been withdrawn and the consequence is that the petitioner who was the accused person of that case, has been acquitted by the said court. Now in view of Section 300 of the CrPC, which reads as under:- “300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.— (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof. (2) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government, for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of Section 220. (3) A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened, or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted. (4) A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged. (5) A person discharged under Section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate. (5) A person discharged under Section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of Section 188 of this Code.” Explanation.—The dismissal of a complaint, or the discharge of the accused, is not an acquittal for the purposes of this section.” prohibits a person acquitted in a case for being tried for the same offence subsequently, on a second or more occasions. In view of the withdrawal of the complaint no. 993 of 2017, a fresh complaint could have been filed, if any occurrence, had taken place beyond the period of 25.11.2013 to 30.10.2017. 13. Now coming to the present complaint being the complaint case no. 539 of 2018, this Court finds that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of either treating the complainant with cruelty or causing hurt to her or causing wrongful restraint to her or demanding any dowry after 30.10.2017 and since marriage between the parties took place on 25.11.2013, the question of perpetrating such offences before 25.11.2013 does not arise. The only occurrence, as per the complaint, which took place after 30.07.2017, is that on 24.01.2018, when the father of the petitioner rang up the complainant and assured her that if she withdraws the complaint, her home will be settled but after the complainant withdrew the complaint, the father of the complainant refused to talk in any manner with the complainant. Apart from that, there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner beyond the period of 25.11.2013 to 30.10.2017. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made against the petitioner between the period of 25.11.2013 to 30.10.2017 even if are considered to be true in their entirety still none of the offences in respect of which learned Magistrate has found prima facie case, is made out against the petitioner, hence, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, more so, when the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant, has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by way of mutual consent, will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in connection with C.P. case no. 539 of 2018 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 30.01.2019 passed in connection with C.P. case no. 539 of 2018, is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 15. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. In view of the disposal of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the interim order, if any, passed earlier is vacated. 16. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.