^J IN OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No. ^O^ of 2011 PETITIONERS VERSUS RESPONDENT (1) Ramakant Sharma S/o Late B.L.Sharma, ....Age-54 years,R/o-K Pocket 14B Maroda Sector, Bhilai Presently- Inspector Anti Corruption Bureau Bilaspur. (2) Smt. Jyoti Sharma, W/o Ramakant Shamia, Now aged about 51 years, R/o Flat No. 206 Saptrshringi Apartment near Surya Hotel, Bus Stand Bilaspur,(C.G.) PicseftW Sj[ Ssiri^AtiA'.J-aA'rt i>ates......^t.&^.........,,. State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- District Magistrate Durg (C.G.) PETITIQNUEDER SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE XI-HC—78 sii^iqii^ih; "tWT 3TR?T sn*i •& , ^^•<II^IM'M,SSiTi1^<l<o,fs|diy'j,< , . ^y^<p -1^0 • S^i *11HCTI <RW^» 7 311^1 'VW ('^f^Sf^) 200 ^aiwofta 3ii^i SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra N 19-08-2011 snri uaam Panaey, coi[insei tor the petiiioners along with Shn RamaKant ynarma, petitioner no.i in p^rson and Smi. jyoti snarma, petitioner-No.2 in porsori. ynri vaionav Goveranarl witn me consent OT me tiarties, tne matter is heard nnallv. "nis petition under Seclion 482 CrPC has been filed bv the Detitioners for quasning cnminai case No.5H9|106 pending m the Court of Judlciai MagiStrate, First uiass, uurg wnerein petition^r NO.I is Deing triea ror aileaea commission or orrence unaer section 498A. ~s. that they have grown chudren alt their disputes to come to an! petitioners that the parties hav] of divorce bv mutuai consent! thereafter, there is no further di| The petitioners who are! have settled aii their disputes <<>i<ild<il-< 'w^ ^' fs'at TfSn?R '^affinsil^f ohan Shrivastava, J. , Panei Lawyer for the State. 3 of IPC. This petition has been i<)intlv preferred bv the petitioner No.1- the husband and petitioner No.'2-the wife, oh whose complaint / report, offence was registered aaainst petitioner No.1. Takinfci into consideration their familv circumstances and ^na wrtn an asempt to snng to an ena, ail Kinds or dispute Detween the parties an<l live peaceful and happy life, have decided to bring lend. It is aiso submitted bv iearned counsei for the fe already aDDroached the Civii Court and a decree has alreadv been oassed by the trial Court and ppute. present in the Court have ciearlv stated that thev lof whatsoever nature and in the larger interest of their famiiy and chiidren, the p^titioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 have no grudge or complaint against each other (low. Petitioner No;2, who is the petitioner in the Court below, has cieariy siatejd that she has expressed not to press upon her complaint and is wiiiing to bijing about settiement of ail disputes without any ^:.—'*'*<ES^S, % XI-HC—78 sti^rw ft4i<* wn s^f sn*< ^ \i „ -3^ •<iftii<rt'i<, 'aTTI'y'i®,E<«Yti'y^< C^\^,^. • lnX> • S^l/f 1 ')--"-"""""-''^ 200 WtR'fffl'tNtth sfl^l 'T^r ('yl^'f^) ^aiw ^fro w^r s?' pressure from any corner. It is ^iso noted that the appiication for compromise was moved bv the parties before tihe learned triai Court but considering that Section 498 A is not compoundabie djie to bar under Section 320 CrPC. the Detitioners approached this Court. in the case of B.S. .joshi anci Qthers y. State pf Haryana and ^thers, AlK 2u03 S.C. 1386, the Suprekne Court hetd that the High Court in exereise of its inherent powers can quash criilninai proceedings or FiR or compiaint and Section 320 of the CrPC does not limit <tr affect the powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. in that case, taking mtoi iaunched on aiieged commissictn of offence under Section 498 A of iPC and that tne Danies nave siatea Derore CrMP No.684/10 and Shatruhd case and that the parties hav^ cleariv stated that she is not inl <<>l<li<'t41-1IWfif 'if 1s^t tRiK^K ^rsitosn^i consideration that the criminal oroceedinas were th.e Court that thev have settled their disputes and agreed for mutual divorce, the F|IR was quashed. T'nis Court aiso, retying i|pon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Joshi (Supra), has (aken simiiar view and has quashed criminai proceedings in the case of Sasidip Kumar and ors. v. State of Chhatfisgarh, n Barman and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, CrWlP No.387/11, Under these circumstanc^s, taking into consideration the submissions made bv learned counsel for the petiijoners and facts and cireumstances of the oresent settled att their disputes and petitioner no.2 has ;iined to proceed further on her compiaint against petitioner No.1 and relying uport the judiament ofthe Supreme Court in the case of B.S.joshi (Supra) and furttier ihat offence under Secfion 323 1PC fe compoundabie without permisston of the Court. 1 am inciined to aiiow the petitiQn and quash the criminai proceedings in criminal case No.569/06 wherein petitioner B. E—^. W*<CT( tONKh 's'si "iii^ld'4, yfll'y'Ko, f^TRTg? ^, S^lJ^ t^-0 •^[200 sn^T'q^r (xpf3?^) TCTIW ^itei sn^i —3— ?WT ofl^^i »*<i<t> Ueepi! No.1 is facing triai for aileged commisl of IPC. 1 ne pemion is accoraingly allovf me i;oun or juaicial Maaistrate, First bion of ofrence under Section 498 A and 323 I'ed. The criminal case No.569/06 pending in (piass, Durg is herebvquashed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava 8 Judge '^ <f>i<ilri<i1-i *iit<<-iT '9 fel^> <F']<$]< ^raffiiH sii^i iliuflfl 1>IA«»l!i"Hrifl,IRRWIJT—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000;