ARUNDHATI Vs. AJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, by filing this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , seeks to challenge the legal validity of proceedings in Misc. Judicial Case No. 70 of 1985 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur and prays that those proceedings including the order dated 13-5-85 (Annexure-5) passed by the said Chief Judicial Magistrate be quashed as it amounts to abuse of the process of the Court, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice.

(2.) THE petitioner is the legally married wife of respondent. They were married in February, 1979 in Bhandara and have two children viz Parimal, who was about 4-1/2 years old at the time of filing this application and Nachiket, who was about 2-3/4 years old on the date of this application. It appears that they could not live together because of serious differences between them. The petitioner left the respondent in July 1982 to give birth to her second child at her father's place. She is since then staying with her parents at Bhandara. It appears that the respondent filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights on 11-6-84 in the Court of District Judge Balaghat. The petitioner also filed an application for divorce on 11-6-84 in the District Court, Bhandara From the facts stated in this application, it appears that the respondent's application for restitution of conjugal rights remained stayed during the pendency of the petitioner's application for divorce.

(3.) IT appears that the respondent filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur in February, 1984 alleging the commission of offence by the petitioner and others under Sections 448, 323, 506, 427, 147 and 500 IPC which was registered as Cr. Case No. 1018 of 1984. The learned Magistrate issued process to the petitioner and others for their appearance before him. The order issuing process was challenged by the petitioner by filing a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge Ambikapur where it was subject matter of Criminal Revision No. 102 of 1984. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to quash the proceedings and set aside the order issuing process, by his Judgment dated 20-2-85. Since then, it appears that the criminal proceedings in the aforesaid criminal complaint came to an end.