IN'THE HIGH COURT_OF jfJDICATURE OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR ,.3.1.% APPLICANTS: ACCUSED PERSONS <? ^- ^^ ,\o:-i^ Av.y\^-.'-'^\^' ^o'^^\-y"' •-^^'".s^"' '^s>^e'~ Cr.M.P. No. .42.r..y.../2010 .• 9WW^"— 1) Banmali Ram S/o Ganga Ram Suryavanshi, Aged about 61 years, Occupation Service Lecture . In Govt. Higher Secondary School, Donga Kohroud, R/o Village Dudga, P. S. 85 Tahsil Pamgarh District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Rakesh S/o Banmali Ram, Aged about 26 years, Kadam Bai W/o Banmali Ram, aged about 60 years, Yashwant S/o Barimali Ram, aged about 18 years Sanjeev W/o Rangin, aged about 32 years Ran@n S/o Goverdhan Prasad, aged about 35 years, Serial No.2 to 5 are resident of village Dudga, Tahsil & P.S. Pamgarh District Janjgir-Champa , and serial 5 & 6 are resident of Village Dhruwakari, Tahsil 8s P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS : 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh Thrdugh : Station House Officer, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) •l, ^ f"-- <t- 2) Smt.MaltiD/oRamNarayan 2-^^'V?.^ (W/o Applicant No.2 Rakesh Kumar) by caste Suryavanshi R/-o Village Jorla (Bhiloni) P.S. & Tahsil ParrLgarh, District Janjgir- Champa-(C.G.) APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR OUASHING THE COMPLAINT/FIR ^ HIOH C011KTOF <aUtATn8«MUtHATBXU^fWR 8B : HOH'BLB MR. JU8T1CB PRITWKBR DIWAKBR CR.M.P.N0.318/^)10 PBTITIOMBRS RESPONIMBnTS versus BaniBaU. Raia & Ofhers Stote ofCUiattisgaA & Aaother Shri Rajcsh Kuxnar Shanaa, couaset for tbe petitioners. Shri Ravindra Agrawal, P.L. forthc State/Besp. No.l. Shri Aml Mourya, counsel for fhe respondent N0.2. Pfctitioaers Banmali Raia, Rateah, Kadam Bai, Yasbwant, Saajeev & Rac^m and Coanplainant/rcspondent No.2 Smfc Malti are also prescnt in pcrson. They are idcntified by thcir respective coiinsel. irenTLON UNDBRaBCynON 44B2 QVFS CR.P.C. ORDBR ^^ ' (08.07.2010( Present petition has bcen filed for quasbing the crmuaaal case N0. 48/2010 pcnding before the Judieial Magistrate Vsst Class, Paingarh, District Janjgir-Chainpa on the basis of FIR dated 5.1.2010 lodged by the respoadcnt No.2 vide erime No. 5/2010 registered at poUce station Pamgmli, District Janjpr- Champa for fhe offence punishablc under Section 498-A read with Section 34 ofthc IPC. 2. It is stated ia fhe pctition that the marriagc of tSse respondent N0.2/complaniant waa solemxuzed witfi fhe applicant N0.2 on 05.05.2009. According to fhe partiea, fixan fhe begiTimng, thcrc used to be some dispute aad -mMuadcrstanding betwcen th^m aad as imfpituiiatety thc couple could not adjust, fhcy started Uvmg separatety from 14.11.2009. It has becn further submitted tbat due to some mdsunderstaading between the partics, on 8.1.2010, fhc coiaplaint was made by the coiupiainaat/respoadent No.2 making aUegation agaiust fhe applicaats for subjecting her to cruelly. It has been further submitted that subsequcafly on ,^ssn'ass~: /Fg°~~^""i 'SS^i <BIS^ ^J^ 19.1.2010, respondent No.2 and ^»pUcant No.2 had inutually agreed to Uve separately. 3. AcconUng to the coiaplainaiit, now sfae has realized that no useful purpose would be servcd in prosecutmg fhe criminal case and it would be better to setUe the dispute ouce for all. 4. Counsel for the respondcnt N0.2 has also filed the afiBdavit ofcotnplalaaat/Stafc Malti stating fhcrcia that she has settled fhe inatter outside the Court and is no inore interested to prosecute fhe coiaplaiat case. 5. This Court put a specific qucstfon to fhe coinplamant/respondent No.2 about the authentteily of fhe appUcation and aEBdavitjoinfly filed by her to wfaich, she repUed fhat she has conapromised fhe xnatter aad she te no inore iaterested to prosecute the applicaats and to fiu-ther go for litigatipn. She has stoted fhat she can not Uvc wifh fhe appHcgnts and itwould bc better for faer and fhc applicant No.2 to live separately to have a better fiiture. 6. In vicw ofthesc circunistaaces aad also in tiae light offhe decision of fhe Suprcme Court in ffae inatter of B.Sfcifodri & Others Vs. State o/Btyena cuul Anatftw reported m. (S003f 4 SCC 675, whereia it Taas beea heU fhat it is the duty af thc Court to encourage genuinc settleinents of matmnonial disput^ cven if the ofiFcnce aBegcd is a noa-coinpcwuidabte oac, the petition is aUowcd. PIR dated 5.1.2010 registcred at policc station Paiagarh vide Crime No. 5/2010 aad consequent to that Criuunal Case N0. 48/2010, pending before the Judicial Magistratc First Class, Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa for the offeace punishable undcr ^Section 498-A/34 is hereby quashed., Sd//- Pritinker Diwaker Judge