j: 'wau , §§; ,%) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlSbARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL Misc. PETmON No. OF 201 1 CD Smgig Banch PETITIONERS (COMPLAINANT) LILY NAMDEV W/o. DAYASHANKAR NAMDEV, AGED ABOUT— 3O YEARS, R/o. SONAR PARA, RAIGARH (C.G.) (ACCUSED PERSONS) DAYASHANKAR NAMDEV S/o. AMRIT NAMDEV, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. RESPONDENT VERSUS KU. JHARNA NAMDEV D/O. AMRrr NAMDEV, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS . SMT. KAMLA NAMDEV, W/o. AMRIT NAMDEV, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS . ALL R/Oa BHANUPRATAP COLONY, RAIGARH DISTRICT RAIGARI—I (C.G.) a STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH,-STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION- CITY KOTWALI, DISTRICT RAIGARH (C.G.) r, PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRlMlNAL PROCEDURE 2. A § /7 \% HIGH COuRT OF CHHATTI$GARH AT §ILASPUR Hon’bie Mr. Justica Pritinker Diwaker Cl'q My Pp NOF 279(29ll PETIIIONgR$ Lily Namdev and others Versus RE-§&NDgNT State of Chhattisgarhv Shri Abhishek Saraf, coun$e! for the petitioners. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P.L. for the State Petitioners are also present before this Court and they are identified by their counsei. PETITION UNPER $ECTI¢N 432 OF Tim QRIM¥NM PROCEMJE€ Q R D § R (22.06.2011) Present petition has been filed for quashment of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 445 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh registered on the basis of FIR lodged by the complainant Smt. Liiy Namdev on 12.03.2007 vide Crime No. 204 of 2007' registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh. 2. In the petition it has been averred that the marriage of the complainantjpetitioner No.1 Lily Namdev was solemnized with petitioner No.2 Dayashankar Namdev on 14.06.2006 at Raigarh. However, after about one month of the marriage, on account of some misunderstanding and dispute between them the petitioner No.1 left her matrimonial house and started living with her parents. It is stated that out of some misunderstanding between the parties, on 12.03.2007 the petitioner No.1 lodged a report at City Kotwali, Raigarh alleging in it that she was subjected to cruelty by petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 for demand of dowry. Based on this report, offence under Section 498A of IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4. According to the partiesi subsequently they have decided to \ compromise the matter and on 2&022011 a petition has ' been fiied by petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 before the Family Court, Raigarh seeking divorce by mutual consent. It has been informed by the parties that petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 have agreed to return aH those articles which were received. by According to the ,._..them. in the marriage. complainantipetitioner No.1, now, she has reaiized "that no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the case against petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 and she wants to settle it onoe for all. Affidavits of the petitioner Nos, 1 & 2 have also been filed. 3. On a, specific question being the complainant/petitioner No.1 about the authenticity of the present petition and the affidavit shown by her, she replied that she has compromised the matter and is no more interested in prosecuting petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 and that her betterment would be in living separately from the petitioner No.2. She has further informed that petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 have agreed to return all the articles which were received during the marriage. put to 4. In these circumstances and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of p. e. Josm and emote v. State of Harvana and another reported in (200$) 4 -$cc $75 wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes even if the offence alleged is a non— compoundable one, the petition is allowed. Proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 445 of 2008, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh are hereby quashgd;/ Sé" . \xei viii“ ?t'\t'\i\\‘e‘ 3“d%e / E