JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner, also heard Mr. K. Wotsa, learned P.P. who appears on behalf of the State respondent and Mr. P.B. Paul, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated is that he married one Smti. Anuradha Paul now late, daughter of respondent No.2 on 30.04.2016, following all Hindu rites and rituals and thereafter, he took her to his house at Golaghat on 01.05.2016. However, on reaching his house his newly weeded wife even refused to eat and drink water and remained quiet all the time and she continued with that behavior till the next day i.e, 02.05.2016. Being married but with such unusual behavior his family members tried to cheer her up but she started shouting and screaming and at the same time told them that she had been married without her consent. On coming to know the fact that she had been married to him without her consent, the parents of his wife were informed immediately and they come to his house on the same day. On arrival, the mother of his wife, Smti. Rita Paul who is respondent No.2 in this case tried to convince is wife to live a normal marriage life but nothing really changed during those two days. Thereafter, on the fifth day of their marriage i.e., on 05.05.2016, a reception for the marriage was held at Anajari Vibah Bhavan, Golaghat. In that occasion also his wife refused to joined him in the programme to the embarrassment of members of his family and himself. Being unable to go on anymore with such embarrassing and frustrating behavior of his wife, the two family members discussed over the matter and decided to end the marriage with a divorce. Therefore, before the Second Officer-in-Charge of Golaghat P.S signed an agreement to that effect. The agreement was authenticated by a Notary Public and witnessed by the respondent No.2, mother of his wife. 3. In that agreement, he and his wife decided that they will voluntarily take divorce and end the marriage. The agreement before the Notary was filed in this petition and it is annexed as Annexure-C. The agreement as stated above shows that the petitioner and his wife now late agreed to live separately and took a mutual divorce according to law. In that agreement, he and his wife decided that they will voluntarily take divorce and end the marriage. The agreement before the Notary was filed in this petition and it is annexed as Annexure-C. The agreement as stated above shows that the petitioner and his wife now late agreed to live separately and took a mutual divorce according to law. The agreement also shows that the mother of the late Anuradha Paul, who is the respondent No.2 here, as a witness. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner’s wife was taken back to her parental home at Dimapur. After about a month’s time had passed from that day, he was informed on 08.06.2016 by the respondent No.2 that his ex-wife Anuradha Paul had committed suicide. Following the incident, the respondent No.2 filed an FIR in the Dimapur East Police Station (Women Cell) on 10.06.2016. The Dimapur East Police Station registered a Case No. 0192/2016 corresponding to G.R Case No. 580/2016 u/s 306/498 A/304 B, IPC. Thereafter, the I.O. submitted a prayer before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur for issuing a non-bailable warrant of arrest against him. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class vide his order dated 12.07.2016 issued a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 5. On coming to now that a warrant of arrest had been issued against him, the petitioner approached this High Court by filing a petition praying for setting aside the order dated 12.07.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. The same was registered as Criminal Revision Petition No. 7(K) of 2016. In that case, this Court, passed an order on 09.08.2016 issuing notice to the respondents and at the same time suspended operation of the order dated 12.07.2016 of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dimapur. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also filed an Anticipatory Bail before this Court, which was registered as Anticipatory Bail No. 21(K) of 2016 in connection with the Criminal case registered against him in the Dimapur East Police Station. This Court while passing the order dated 09.08.2016, granted the interim bail and directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned I.O on or before 17.08.2016. In pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. on 12.08.2016 and his statement was recorded. This Court while passing the order dated 09.08.2016, granted the interim bail and directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned I.O on or before 17.08.2016. In pursuant to the said order, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. on 12.08.2016 and his statement was recorded. When the Anticipatory bail application was listed on 21.09.2016, this Court came to the conclusion that the case against the petitioner is not a fit case for custodial detention of the petitioner. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2016. 6. This Court after hearing the learned counsel representing the parties in the Criminal Petition No. 8(K) of 2016 came to the conclusion that the petition, therein, has become infractuous because of the order dated 21.09.2016. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner’s that since the petitioner and his late wife had lived separately in different places after the agreement was signed on 05.05.2016 before the Notary and the Second Officer-in-Charge of Golaghat P.S, the question of him demanding dowry from her does not arise at all. It is also submitted that since the petitioner’s wife died while she was in her parental home, the allegation in the FIR that he had tortured her and harassed her and as a result, she had committed suicide is false and unfounded accusation which has no basis whatsoever. Lastly, it is submitted that no dying declaration alleging torture or harassment by him was left behind by his late wife. 8. Today, when the case come up for hearing, Mr. K. Wotsa, learned P.P., submitted that the Dimapur East Police Station has submitted a final report of the case under section 173 of Cr. P.C.to the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. The learned P.P., also submitted that in the report of the I.O it is stated that there is no evidence available from which one can form an opinion that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner, therefore, the I.O. has prayed for consideration of the report. In view of this development, I am of the considered view that this case may be disposed of with the following direction;- That the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur should, at the earliest consider the report submitted by the I.O. of the case u/s 173 of Cr.P.C by giving a chance of being heard to the parties and pass necessary order. In case, the parties are not satisfied, they can always approach the appropriate forum thereafter. With this, the Criminal Petition is disposed.