IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established that evidence from divorce proceedings can be considered in criminal cases, and the findings of fact in civil and criminal cases are not binding on each other.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ravi Prakash and Mrs. Ruby Pandey, the learned counsels appearing for the respondent State and Mrs. Shilpi Gadodia and Miss Niharika Nidhi, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

2. In these petitions common question of law as well as order taking cognizance are under challenge that is why with consent of the parties all these petitions have been heard together.

3. These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 05.07.2013, in connection with Complaint Case No.794 of 2013, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh.

4. The O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint case alleging therein that the complainant’s marriage was solemnized with petitioner on 11.3.2012 at Delhi as per Hindu rites and customs. Rs.23,90,000/- was deposited in the account of the father of the petitioner by the complainant’s father and Rs.64,000/- was paid to the accused persons for purchasing of suit. It is alleged that after marriage the mother in law and father in law took signature of complainant on blank cheque and entire amount was taken out by them. The petitioner after taking her to Vishakhapatnam spent less time with her. The petitioner was transferred to Delhi and there the complainant was humiliated and mocked on small issues. The complainant went Hazaribagh alone and narrated the whole story to her parents. The complainant again started living with petitioner where she was tortured by her in laws. It is alleged that one night the complainant was forcibly made drink wine by petitioner and was locked inside the room from where the complainant informed the police who came to her rescue. It is alleged that husband and inlaws always use to insist for divorce.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are, husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law in these petitions. He submits that husband of the complainant was posted as leutinant commandant at the time of marriage in Indian Navy and was posted at New Delhi. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Commander in the said organization. The petitioner has filed original suit for divorce being O.S.No.355 of 2014 against the O.P.No.2 and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner namely Satyakriti and against the O.P.No.2.He submits that said order was challenged by O.P.No.2 in F.A. No.171 of 2019 which was disposed of by order dated 24.11.2021 and said appeal was not pursued by the O.P.No.2 on the ground that she has received one time alimony of Rs.25 lacs. In view of that, the decree of divorce was attained finality. He submits that in this background, to continue the proceeding further will amount to abuse of the process of law. He submits that now the petitioner and the O.P.No.2 has already solemnized another marriage after divorce.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that cruelty has been made against the O.P.No.2 and that is why the case has been filed and cognizance has been taken against all the accused persons and once the criminality is made out, both proceedings, criminal as well as civil can go simultaneously and in that view of the matter the proceeding may not be quashed.

7. The learned counsels for the respondent State submits that it appears that divorce has attained finality in view of the fact that the said F.A was not pursued by the O.P.No.2 as she has received one-time alimony of Rs.25 lacs.

8. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, admittedly these petitioners are the husband and in-laws of the O.P.No.2. The complaint case was filed alleging cruelty has been made by these petitioners and based on that the cognizance has been taken. The Court finds that in a divorce petition which was subject matter in original suit on the materials on record the Court finds that husband of the O.P.No.2 has been able to p