JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing entire proceeding in connection with Original Maintenance Case No.171/2021, filed by opposite party no.2 against the petitioner under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance and also for quashing order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro whereby the learned Judge has proceeded for taking evidence in the instant case. 3. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party no.2 is not wife of the petitioner. He further submits that earlier opposite party no.2 filed a petition being Original Maintenance Case No.188/2016 against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and in that case, the opposite party no.2 has left the proceeding and thereafter the said case was dismissed vide order dated 10.09.2018. He also submits that the mother of opposite party no.2 has also stated that opposite party no.2 is not the wife of the petitioner and that is why opposite party no.2 has left the proceeding and subsequently second case being Original Maintenance Case No.171/2021 has been filed against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C for maintenance. He further submits that the petitioner has filed written statement in the said case, however ignoring the written statement filed by the petitioner the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro proceeded with the matter and fixed the case for evidence vide order dated 24.11.2021. On these grounds, he submits that this Court may interfere and quash the entire proceeding filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. Per contra, Mr. Murari learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that earlier the opposite party no.2 has filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance in which in spite of summon as well as paper publication, the petitioner has not appeared before the court and thereafter the learned court below has passed the order to give maintenance to the tune of Rs.16,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 by the petitioner. He further submits that one of the daughter of opposite party no.2 was traceless and that is why she has not been able to lead the evidence and the case was dismissed. He further submits that one of the daughter of opposite party no.2 was traceless and that is why she has not been able to lead the evidence and the case was dismissed. He also submits that the order was recalled by the court and the opposite party no.2 was allowed to give the evidence in that case. He further submits that now the case has been filed and the learned court below has rightly proceeded with the matter. 5. By way of reply, Mr. Thakur learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document with regard to Aadhar Card of opposite party no.2 is forged one. 6. In the aforesaid background, it appears that the case was filed which has been registered and the learned court below has proceeded to consider the contention of the parties. Once the case is instituted, the court is required to proceed to find out the truth and that can be disclosed before the court by way of leading the evidence. In the criminal proceedings, it is the duty of the court to find out the truth by way of eliciting all necessary evidence by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process in the proceeding. Since the case has already been filed and the learned court has proceeded with the matter, it is open to the petitioner to demonstrate his case before the learned court where the proceeding is pending. So far as the argument advanced by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to forged document is concerned, that can be proved in the court below. 7. In view of the above facts, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. 8. Interim order dated 24.03.2022 stands vacated.