a^NTHEHON'BLE^IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) CR.M.P. N0. ^>^~}- OF 2011 l^ ?c"? £?'nnt/^' APPLICANTS .»...-^^i\ '^'"^"^- .—*'*' 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Shatruhan Barman S/o Sudheram Barman, aged about - 25 years Sudheram S/o Dukalha Barman, aged about - 50 years Geeta Bai W/o Sudheram Barman, aged about - 45 years Bharat\S/o Sudheram Barman, a^ed about - 27 years Ku. Bhagwati Barman D/o Sudheram Barls^i, aged about - 19 years NON-APPLICANTS Ku. Sumitra D/o Sudheram Barman, aged about - 20 years All are R/o Village - Kharsola, Police Station - Pafhriya, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station - Bilha, Distt- Bilaspur (CG) 2. Smt. Rajni Barman W/o Shatruhan Barman, aged about - 24 years, R/o Village - Kharsola, Police Station - Pathriya, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ^' APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OELTHE CQDEJ5F CRIMINAI^PROCEDURE, 1973 7S[ '<11<4M<1, lS-ci1y*l(o, f^iTFq^ —.^•..!?/'..;.f..-.^.3..^Z^..! 3n^TTRRT('^?f 311^1 'W ft-fi* wn 3n^r **4 'PBWSlfel 3(!^I SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan S .22/2t1 12-07-2011 Shri Pradeep Rajgir, counsel for Shri V. A. Goverdhan, Panel Shri O. P. Sahu, counsel for Petitioners and respondent No.2 Heard. This petition under Section 482 o| petitioners for quashing F.I.R.No.; Bilha as also for quashing criminal Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha in| alleged commission of offence under Se|i Learned counsel for the petitions the respondent No.2 submitted that between the petitioner No.1 and the lodged in the Police Station alleging 498-A/34 of the I.P.C, on which, an of sheet has been filed. However, later dispute.particularly the husband-Shatrut wife-Smt. Rajni Barman have maintair|e have started living together. Learned that in view of the re-union of the and the proceedings may be quashed down by the Supreme Court in the cas S(ate of Haryana and Others, AIR dated 06-05-2010 passed by this Courl Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & 4ie petitioners. Lawfer for the State/respondent No.2. respj)ndent No.2. ^re also present in person. husbslnd fciy 2)003 »bl'i<i<')4i-t iwaf tf fet?t (falt^K ^? aifaiT SIT^I riyastavaiJ. the Cr.P.C. has been fited by the 1 registered at Police Station t)roceedings pending before the Criminal Case No. 1514/2011 for ;tion498-A/34ofthel.P.C. ks as well as leamed counsel for i|iitially, there was some dispute fespondent No.2 and report was corfimission of offence under Section fence was registered and charge )n, the parties have settled their |an Barman, and the complainant- tair|ed cordial relation and now they :ounsel for the parties submitted and the wife, the criminal case this Court in view ofthe law laid of B. S. Joshi and Others vs. S.C. 1386 as also the order in the case of Rajendra Patel & ^nother (Cr.M.P.No.307 of 2010), ?TCRr,(wn^Ba—FS/UO—2/20'i--1.50,000. ?Sf -^IWI^, 'S^WTS, fsTcTCT^T sn^i'q^T('^3^i!) 3n^»rw ft-fi'd' ^T ^SH^t sfr4h> TOnwsftasn^i -2' <.'. •Qt.- '^ft; ^ ^. Tumane the interest of justice demands that the The petitioner No. 1 and the respondent in the Court, have also stated before thi (irosecution is brought to an end. |No.2, who are present in person t Court that all the disputes have been amicably settled and they are lea((ing a happy married life and the respondent No.2 does not wantfurther 'lt. with the petition, both the parties have compromise, which bears thumb impresi respondent No.2, and the same is al, respondentNo.2. t Therefore, 1 am satisfi@J that the! between the parties andWe'rS'is no undije infiuence orcoercion exercised on respondent No.2 by any of the petitioi|iers before the Court. In view of the aforestated facts ai] the law laid down by the Supreme Coi|irt in the case of B. S. Joshi & Others (supra), the application is allow^d. Criminal proceedings pending before. the Judicial Magistrate^First No. 1514/2011 for alleged commission of ofthe I.P.C. are hereby quashecL^ The petitiori is accordingly allowefjl 'dntaiits tIItRTl' •if fetzt Xl^R^IT '^aifmsni?) ^roceedings in the matter. Along jRled an applicafion (I.A.No.1) for ^ion of the petitioner No.1 and the ^o supported by an affidavit of e has been amicable settlement d circunnstances of the case and ;lass, Bilha in Criminal Case offence under Section 498-A/34 Sd/- "-""•"a; Shrivastava ••l?i',-^r«^^t-'? g^n?pr, m -FS/I40—2/20'I--1.50,000.