^ J IN THEHONBLEHIGH COURT OF CHH&TTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P, No. /^,^^ of 2011 ,ri° PETITIONER Applicant ^ ^.-•"J:^ -^•^^!\ »-<wl®&^ ,;** i.-" RESPONDENTS Abdul Salim, S/o. Haji Abdul Karun, aged about 36 years, R/o. in front of street of CMD College. Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur Distiict Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus :1) State of Chhattisgarh through the District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) :2) Smt. Sakeena Bano, aged about 33 years, D/o.late Razzak Hussain Makwana, Occupation Railway Employee, R/o. In front of Imain Bada, Khaparganj, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur (C.G.) (COMPLAINANT) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE -)- XI-HC—78 sffl^F^rR-ii'* ?Tan 3?T^?T ?h+1 »1* *ll*(Wl (hitrai \ct1. 3Sf ^iqiyq, SXlly-ilto, f°(<-fl<Jy,'(. ri-^.....&ci^4^...'^o.:..&ss?./lL fff^ ••—--J---•••••••••••••-•••...•I.^^^QQ 3nt?r'TR7 (Tpfg^q) WIWRtfeail^r SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mcthan Shrivastava, 1S-12-2011 cni<i[<n<<1*t +iHcif^ffgi£t"^R^K ^? affiiif aii^r Ms. Sareena Khan, coun^ei for the petitioner. Shri Rakesh jha, DeputyiGovernmeni Advocate for the State. This petition under Sectfon 482 CrPC has been fiied by the petitioner for quashing order dated 13/10/2011 passed by the Judiclai Magistrate, First Ciass, Biiaspur as aiso order dated 21/11/2011 passed in revision whereby revision ofthe petitioner has been dismissed. j Respondent No.2iodgec commission of offence under carried out investigation and offence under Section 498-A ii obtaining in the record and ch^irge sheet, the iearned Magistrate framed chargss against the petitioner for com^nission of offence under Section 498-A, 323 and 506-B iPC vide order dated petitioner preferred a revision, Learned counsel for the of criminaicase against the charges of aileged offences is the police in the form of charg iaw. it is further submitted that have been committed and thq aiiegations are highiy improbat a report on 9/7/2010 in the poiice station alleging Section 498-A against the petitioner. The poiice submitted charge sheet alleging commission of 'C against the petitioner. On the basis or material 13/10/2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the i/hich too has been dismissed. jpetitioner vehementiy contended that the institution Ipetitioner and subjecting him to trial by framing |not at ail made out from the materiai produced by ^ sheet and it wouid be an abuse of ihe process of the back ground in which the offence is aileged to deiay after which the report has been iodged, the iie ana no person or oramary pruaence wouia ever accept such ailegations as pro(?able. Learned counsei for the petitioner contended tnat there was divorce betwe^n the parties on 22/3/2010 and after four months <ni^i ^i f<;-f WIS 311^1 *W* Is '3'ST "4|AfKrl<l, 0Tll'!-l'|(o, (6«?11<-1^< <^5-r<^^k. IA-O • SJ&'S/1) 3^1 'V^! (1cl(lc"t?) •§''\..< TCIIW ^lte 311^1 — ^- report was iodged in the police afterthought and concocted. Shi dispute between the parties, in 1 amved at between the parties in No.2 had accepted that an maintenance, which is being paid respondent No.2 has already in; which is pending before the Famii commission of offence is cieariy subjected to prosecution, it wouid After going through the coi and case diary statements of resp mat respondent No.2 was dowry. The inten/ening circumst institution of proceedings for grar prosecution story whoily improba including the pleadings of fhe pan show that respondent No.2 did r( .^' stalion afriount subje|rted also, respondent No.2 has ailege<|l sheet and the aiiegations taken ingreciients of ofrence aileged. V\f whether they are iiable to be dii lodged after passing of decree 4 Section 125 CrPC wouid be in fh4 permissible at this stage. <t)l*([<f41t *1H<"?f^f fet3l <^l'^l< ^? STfgil 3D^I which cieariy shows that the aiiegations are ^ further submits that though thste was some he conciiiation proceedings, a settlement was ^hich ihe pefitione»"hadagreed and respondent of Rs.2500/'- wouid be paid towards by the petitioner. She further submits that the ^tituted proceedings for grant of maintenance ^ Court. Therefore, iodging of a report alieging an act of afterthought and if the petitioner is ^e an abuse ofthe process of iaw. ^tents of the charge sheet,particulariy the FIR londent No.2 and other witnesses, it is reveaied to crueity in connection with demand or ances regarding fiiing of divorce petition and t of maintenance does noi, by itseif, make the bie. None of the documents piaced on record :ies before the Famiiy Court in civii proceedings ot whisper about crueity. in those proceedings crueity. Therefore, the contents of the charge ?n iis face value and in its entirety, make out 'hether or not, such aiiegations are reliabie and ibeiieved on the count that criminai case was if divorce and institution of proceedings under reaim of appreciation of evidence, which is not »IIU<1<<<lsll4 >1!;»11<'><1,tW.IW'll^—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. gjS"—^CT W^ XI-HC—78 aii^rqiiftaN; 'rWT ^H^T ^»*iR> Deepti a> ^THcir ai<n<» 's'sr "41-41ti <<, ®Ti1«'i!c,f^nwp: C'Tfv^- ^JQ' ^>S2i/'?WI 200 3"W TI^T (^?^^tT) Applying the principles iaid c of Haryana and others v. BnaJ Supreme CourtCases 335, i am charges. •iMs weii settied that at tti to be seen is whether there is sufl not a case of conviction, which has Pradesh v. S.BJohri & ors., ?>pi^cpN tinRif n ftp^ (fSn^n '^3ffiPT3fI^I bwn by the Supreme Court in thecase of State an Lai and others, 1992 Suppiementarv (11 tot inclined to interfere with the order of framing |e stage of framing atcharges, what is required pcient ground for proceedings is made out and 1 aiso been heid in the case of State of Maahva 1 jL-JIZJSijranianSjnan Karam Singn (aiooi Punjabi v. Jitertdra Bhim Rai Biliava & ors.. (199014 SCC 76. Fhe grounds which have b^en raised in this petition and aii other contents which are avaiiabie to ihe petitione< With the aforesaid iiberty, ih^ peiition is finaily disposed off. may be raised at appropriate stage oftriai. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^.( •<K- ^