Pravesh Gupta vs Smt. Priyanka Gupta
2021 Latest Caselaw 3123 Chatt

                                   1



                                                               NAFR
        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                     CRMP No. 861 of 2021


1.   Pravesh Gupta, S/o Late Shri Anant Kumar Gupta, Aged
     About 33 Years,
2.   Smt. Manju Gupta, W/o Late Shri Anant Kumar Gupta, Aged
     About 60 Years,
3.   Pinki Gupta, W/o Abhijeet Gupta, Aged About 35 Years,
      All R/o Ward No. 08, Turkaripara, Police Station Khairagarh,
      Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
      (Wrongly mentioned as Bilaspur).
                                                      ---- Petitioners
                               Versus
     Smt. Priyanka Gupta, W/o Shri Pravesh Gupta, Aged About
     30 Years, Through Shri Pradeep Gupta, presently R/o Amit
     Medical Stores, Gandhi Nagar/Nehru Nagar, Balram Talkies,
     Near Dr. Ghatke Nursing Home, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District
     Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                    ---- Respondent

For Petitioners : Shri Ajay Thakre, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 12.11.2021

1. This petition is filed seeking relief for quashment of Criminal

Complaint Case No.05 of 2020 pending before Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for

commission of alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 34

of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').

2. Shri Ajay Thakre, learned counsel for the petitioners submit

that marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent was

solemnized on 22.02.2014. Respondent No.2 immediately

after coming to her matrimonial house, started misbehaving

and quarreling with family members and thereafter, she

herself left matrimonial home. Thereafter, petitioner No.1

filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 (in short 'Act of 1955') before Additional Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur seeking divorce in Civil Suit

No.132-A/2017. Civil suit for grant of divorce was decreed in

favour of petitioner vide judgment dated 04.04.2019. Family

Court while decreeing the suit in favour of petitioner No.1

recorded a finding that it is the petitioner who is indulged in

using abusing language and not behaving properly. He

pointed out that respondent has also preferred an

application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of maintenance.

Learned Family Court, after concluding inquiry, allowed

application in part and rejected application for grant of

maintenance so far as it relates to respondent and allowed

maintenance only for child (applicant No.2 therein). In that

also, Family Court recorded that respondent was deserted

for any harassment as pleaded in application. The witnesses

examined by respondent in civil suit for grant of divorce as

well as in the proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. only

will be examined by respondent in criminal complaint case,

hence, no purpose will be served to continue with criminal

complaint case. He also pointed out that criminal complaint

case has been filed only after filing of application for grant of

divorce by petitioner No.1. The proceedings under challenge

is an abuse of process of law, hence, it be quashed.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also

perused the documents placed on record.

4. The main contention of petitioners is that as Family Court in

two proceedings based on the evidence produced by

petitioner No.1 as well as respondent, recorded a finding

that respondent could not able to prove the pleadings made

in reply to application for grant of divorce as well as in the

application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

5. The law with regard to considering evidence of civil

proceeding and criminal proceeding or vice versa is well

settled that evidence of either proceedings cannot be

accepted as it is, but Presiding Officer dealing with case of

either nature has to apply its mind and to consider the case

based on evidence brought on record by respective parties

in very said proceeding.

6. So far as consideration of Magistrate for continuing with

criminal complaint case is only with regard to whether there

is any material brought on record by complainant by way of

pleading and by way of preliminary evidence to show that

there is sufficient material to proceed with the complaint

further and it is not that whether preliminary evidence or

pleading brought on record is sufficient for conviction of non-

applicant therein.

7. The present petition is not filed with the grounds that from

perusal of pleadings in complaint case and grounds raised

therein would show that respondent has made certain

allegations of harassment and ill-treatment with regard to

demand of dowry. The preliminary evidence of complainant

or her witnesses though recorded is not brought on record.

8. In view of above factual position, I do not find any good

ground to grant relief, as sought for by the petitioners in this

petition. The petition being devoid of substance, is liable to

be and is hereby dismissed.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

complaint case is pending since 2016, hence, a direction be

issued to learned Magistrate to dispose of criminal complaint

case expeditiously.

10. Considering the period of pendency of criminal case and

nature of dispute as appearing from the records between the

parties, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh will make all his endeavor to dispose of

Criminal Complaint Case No.05 of 2020 expeditiously.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Yogesh