JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State and Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.02.2008 against the petitioner under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in connection with Complaint Case No. 584/2006, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro. 3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the marriage between the complainant-opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner was solemnized on 24.11.1997 according to Hindu rites and rituals. After the marriage, the complainant went to her nuptial house and started leading the conjugal life with her husband being the petitioner and out of the said marriage, a female child was born on 06.11.1999. It was further alleged that after the birth of the said female child, the husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant started inflicting torture upon the complainant allegedly saying that the complainant was supposed to give birth to son and instead, she gave birth to the daughter. It was also alleged that the accused persons started demanding Rs. 1 Lakh for the marriage of the said daughter of the complainant which was allegedly refused by the complainant and upon being refused the accused persons used to beat her by confining her in the bathroom and the complainant was allegedly not even provided with food for two days. Thereafter, the father of the complainant came to meet the complainant sometimes in January, 2000 and somehow managed to take the complainant with him. It was further alleged that thereafter the accused persons being the husband and brother-in-law of the complainant went to her paternal house and further demanded money and allegedly this time, the demand increased to Rs. 1.5 Lakh being the said amount of money and also a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for starting a business by the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner lodged a false case sometimes in the year 2004 for restitution of conjugal life. It was also alleged regarding this issue, several meetings (Panchayatis) were held but the accused persons allegedly refused to honour the words of the Panches. 50,000/- for starting a business by the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner lodged a false case sometimes in the year 2004 for restitution of conjugal life. It was also alleged regarding this issue, several meetings (Panchayatis) were held but the accused persons allegedly refused to honour the words of the Panches. It was further alleged that thereafter on 03.11.2006, the accused persons came to the residence of the complainant and allegedly started saying that if the complainant and her parents refused to pay the said Rs. 1.5 Lakh, he will marry somebody else. When the petitioner was requested by the parents of the complainant, the accused persons started pulling the complainant by catching her hair and also pulled the golden chain of the complainant and fled away by threatening to kill the complainant. 4. Vide order dated 31.03.2022, this matter was referred to the Member Secretary, JHALSA to explore the possibilities of resolving the dispute amicably between the husband and wife, however, opposite party no. 2 has not appeared before the Member Secretary, JHALSA. On 04.05.2023, Mr. Swapan Maji, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 pointed out that due to some exigency, opposite party no. 2 has not appeared before the Member Secretary, JHALSA and he submitted that this matter may kindly be again sent back to JHALSA for mediation as he has got instruction that opposite party no. 2 will appear in mediation. Thereafter, this matter was again sent on that day for mediation before Member Secretary, JHALSA with direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to opposite party no. 2 as one time travelling expenses before the Member Secretary, JHALSA. On 10.07.2023, it has been recorded in the order that in the mediation report, it has come that opposite party no. 2 has not again appeared before the Member Secretary, JHALSA although direction was there and travelling expenses was taken care by the earlier order and by the said order, again the matter was sent to the Member Secretary, JHALSA for mediation between the parties and pursuant to that, opposite party no. 2 has appeared before the Member Secretary, JHALSA and on the first day of appearance, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to opposite party no. 2 as travelling expenses in terms of earlier direction of the Court. 2 has appeared before the Member Secretary, JHALSA and on the first day of appearance, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to opposite party no. 2 as travelling expenses in terms of earlier direction of the Court. In the mediation report, it has been pointed out that both the parties are agreed to settle the matter and it was further agreed that sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- will be paid by the petitioner in three installments to opposite party no. 2 for her maintenance as well as maintenance of girl child. It was also agreed that the amount of first installment of Rs. 1,50,000/- will be paid by the petitioner through demand draft and further installment will be paid before the Court at the time of taking of this Cr. M.P. and proper I.A. will be filed by both the sides. Pursuant to that, sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner by way of demand draft in the Court itself, which has been recorded in the order dated 11.09.2023. I.A. No. 9444 of 2023 has been filed by both the parties stating therein that compromise has taken place between the parties and I.A. No. 9555 of 2023 has been filed for modification of the order dated 11.09.2023 on the ground that opposite party no. 2 has already married with another man, namely, Santosh Kumar Prasad. The said I.A. were considered on 22.11.2023 and on that day, Mr. Swapan Maji, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 took time for filing reply to I.As. Pursuant to that, reply to the I.A. has been filed by opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner to the reply to I.A. filed by opposite party no. 2 is ready, however, the same was not filed in the Registry as today is the first opening day of the Court after X-mas vacation. 5. The said rejoinder filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 6. Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 on 24.11.1997. He submits that the present complaint case was filed on 06.12.2006 and pursuant to that, the present Cr. M.P. has been filed in the year 2012. He further submits that in paragraph 10 of this Cr. Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 on 24.11.1997. He submits that the present complaint case was filed on 06.12.2006 and pursuant to that, the present Cr. M.P. has been filed in the year 2012. He further submits that in paragraph 10 of this Cr. M.P. the petitioner has stated that he is ready to keep his wife with full dignity and honour, however, she has denied to live along with the petitioner. He also submits that I.A. No. 9444 of 2023 has been filed for compromise, wherein, copy of Aadhar Card of opposite party no. 2 has been annexed and, thereafter, I.A. No. 9555 of 2023 has been filed for modification of the order dated 11.09.2023. He further submits that in I.A. No. 9444 of 2023, the copy of Aadhar Card of opposite party no. 2 has been annexed, wherein, she is said to be wife of one Santosh Kumar Prasad, whereas, the name of this petitioner is Pyari Mohan Chatterjee @ Peyari Mohan Chatterjee. He submits that even in the mediation, the correct picture was not disclosed by opposite party no. 2 and she has agreed to take a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- from the petitioner and refused to go along with the petitioner. He submits that by way of duping the petitioner, Mediator and even this Court has not been spared by opposite party no. 2 by suppressing the fact that in absence of any divorce, she has already solemnized marriage with one Santosh Kumar Prasad. On these grounds, he submits that the conduct of opposite party no. 2 itself is sufficient to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The said argument is being resisted by Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2 on the ground that only for preparation of Aadhar Card, the name of one Santosh Kumar Prasad was provided. He submits that there is no solemnization of marriage by opposite party no. 2 with Santosh Kumar Prasad. He further submits that the allegations are there in the complaint petition and in view of that, this Court may not interfere with the entire criminal proceeding. He also submits that once the terms and conditions are there, the petitioner is required to comply the said conditions. 2 with Santosh Kumar Prasad. He further submits that the allegations are there in the complaint petition and in view of that, this Court may not interfere with the entire criminal proceeding. He also submits that once the terms and conditions are there, the petitioner is required to comply the said conditions. He further submits that the cause of action of this case arose in the year 2006 and in view of that, the proceeding cannot be quashed. On these grounds, he submits that this petition may kindly be dismissed. 8. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State submits that in the Aadhar annexed by opposite party no. 2, the name of husband of opposite party no. 2 is disclosed as Santosh Kumar Prasad. 9. The Court has gone through the contents of the complaint case and finds that it has been alleged that the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 24.11.1997. The Court further finds that there are general and omnibus allegations against the accused persons, however, in the order dated 04.02.2008, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner only under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 08.07.2013 suggests that the petitioner has already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal life and during pendency of that petition, the present complaint case has been filed by opposite party no. 2, which suggests that it is afterthought of opposite party no. 2 to file present complaint case against the petitioner. 10. Further, opposite party no. 2 has suppressed her second marriage with one Santosh Kumar Prasad before the learned Mediator, the counsel who are representing her as well as with this Court. After filing of the compromise petition, wherein copy of Aadhar of opposite party no. 2 has been annexed, the petitioner only came to know about that fact and, thereafter, he has filed I.A. No. 9555 of 2023. Thus, it appears that opposite party no. 2 is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and the petitioner has bonafidely appeared before the Mediator and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- and pursuant to that, sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was already paid in the Court proceeding, which has been recorded in the order dated 11.09.2023. 11. Thus, it appears that opposite party no. 2 is unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and the petitioner has bonafidely appeared before the Mediator and agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- and pursuant to that, sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was already paid in the Court proceeding, which has been recorded in the order dated 11.09.2023. 11. The conduct of opposite party no. 2 has been recorded hereinabove in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and nothing concrete has been argued on behalf of opposite party no. 2 to demolish the said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner except the fact that for preparation of Aadhar Card, the name of Santosh Kumar Prasad was provided. The said argument of learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 is not being accepted by the Court in view of the fact that no divorce has taken place. The petitioner is still husband of opposite party no. 2 and she has got no occasion to disclose another person's name in the Aadhar as her husband. She was only required to disclose the name of the petitioner, who happened to be husband of opposite party no. 2, which prima facie suggests that she has solemnized another marriage in absence of any divorce. 12. If the conduct is not good, to allow to continue the proceeding will amount to abuse of process of the Court. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Agarwal vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal, (2005) 3 SCC 299 . 13. Merely because mediation has taken place with certain terms and conditions, that cannot be a ground of not interfering the petition by the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when malicious proceeding is proved before the Court. It is a case of mala-fide action against the petitioner by a discontrol wife. 14. How Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is being misused by the wives are the subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts and few of the judgments referred herein will be suffice for disposal of this case. It is a case of mala-fide action against the petitioner by a discontrol wife. 14. How Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is being misused by the wives are the subject matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts and few of the judgments referred herein will be suffice for disposal of this case. Reference may be made to the judgments passed in the cases of Rajesh Sharma vs. State of U.P. (2018) 10 SCC 472 , Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 and K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 . 15. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that it is a misuse of process of law by the wife and the petitioner is unnecessarily being harassed. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.02.2008 in connection with Complaint Case No. 584/2006, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro are quashed. 16. Looking into the terms and conditions of the mediation, it appears that the amount was also meant for welfare of the girl child, who is residing along with opposite party no. 2, the Court is not directing to refund back the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- which has already been handed over by the petitioner to opposite party no. 2 and in view of that, that amount will be utilized for welfare of the girl child born out of wedlock. The amount meant for travelling expenses of opposite party no. 2 to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- shall also not be refunded back to the petitioner, however, in view of the above facts, the petitioner is not required to further pay a sum to opposite party no. 2. It is open to the petitioner to take recourse under the law, so far as the marriage between the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 is concerned. 17. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of. 18. Pending I.A. if any, is disposed of. 19. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.