Point of Law: Petitioner has not been confined for illegal purpose amounting to commission of offence. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the liberty granted to him by filing the complaint under Sections 468, 471 & 419.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of Complaint Case No 259 of 2013 (criminal proceedings) pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg filed by respondent No. 1 for alleged commission of offence under Sections 419, 468 & 474 of IPC against the petitioner and three other persons. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide its order dated 27.04.2013 subsequently registered the complaint under Sections 419, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner - Alka @ Shabana Parveen and Smt. Shabana Parveen and dismissed the complaint against Hamid Hullah Khan and Tahir Khan.

2. The facts projected by the petitioner, in brief, are that the respondent who is an Advocate by profession has filed a complaint on 27-7-2012 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 469, 120-B/34 of IPC against the petitioner and three others stating that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent was solemnized in the year 1998 according to Muslim rites and rituals. After three days of the marriage, the petitioner went to her parental house and thereafter the petitioner i.e. Shabana @ Alka Parveen did not return back to her matrimonial house. After lapse of six years i.e., on 2-8-2004 respondent moved an application under Section 98 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (CG). The said application was allowed vide its order dated 2-8-2004 against which the petitioner along with one Hamid Hullah Khan filed a revision petition before learned Sessions Judge, Durg on 09.11.2004.

3. This Court vide its order dated 18.01.2021 has called for the records of the Criminal Revision No. 172/2010 decided by learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg and following facts were revealed. During the course of hearing of the revision petition on 02.07.2005, respondent No. 1 raised objection with regard to identification of the petitioner, therefore, the learned Revisional Court has directed the petitioner to remain present. The petitioner appeared before the Revisional Court on 01.09.2005 and has submitted her identification but respondent No. 1 raised dispute about her identification, therefore, Revisional Court has directed respondent No. 1 to lead evidence to substantiate her contention that the petitioner is a different person. The respondent No. 1 to substantiate her contention has examined as many as 7 to 8 witnesses namely J.L. Parate from District Education Office, Kabirdham, K.K. Verma, Police Constable, Civil Line, Kawardha, Bagwani Ram Chandravanshi, District Education Officer, Kawardha, J.R. Vaidya, Food Inspector, Pradeep Shrivastava, Assistant Grade- II, B.L. Mahobe, Sub-Inspctor (Police), P.S.-Borla, P.L. Yadav, Education Department, M.K. Gupta, Block Education Officer, Borla. Respondent No.1 exhibited the document from D/1 to D/59.

4. Respondent No. 1 has moved an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C. against the witnesses examined by respondent No. 1 himself and against the petitioner also. On the said application, the Revisional Court has dismissed the said application by recording its finding as under :-

^^mRRkjoknh Øekad&1 dh vksj ls vU; vkosnu /kkjk 340 lgifBr /kkjk 195¼1½¼[k½ na0iz0la0 ij mHk; i{k ds rdZ lqus x,A

oLrqr% iqujh{k.kdrkZ Øekad&1 dh igpku dk iz'u mRiUu gksus ds laca/k esa izdj.k esa mRrjoknh Øekad&1 dh vksj ls vkifRr fd, tkus ij muds lkf{k;ksa dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k gSA eq[;r% ,d lk{kh ds dFku nwljs lk{kh ds dFkuksa ls fojks/kkHkk"kh gksus dh fLFkfr gksuk rFkk nLrkostksa ds foijhr gksuk crk;k tk jgk gSA ekeys ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa rFkk fookfnr fcUnqvksa dks ns[krs gq, mDr vkosnu Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA

iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk&izdj.k esa mHk; i{k vkxkeh frfFk esa vko';d :i ls vafre rdZ djsaA**

5. By order dated 04.03.2011, the learned Seventh Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the criminal revision filed by the petitioner by quashing