IN THE HIGH COURT OF^CHATriSGARH AT^ILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. 2- ^& / 2007 Petitjone!Js X. '7"'W 1. B.Shrinivas Rao S/o Late Jagdishwar Rao, Aged about 27 yrs. 2. B. Ramkrishrfa Rao S/o Late Jagdishwar Rao, Aged about 25 yrs. 3. _B. Satyawati y?$y^WfoyS^Late ;'a9dishwar Rao, ^^n/. t ^"^%^ tged about 51 yrs., „ o- Respondent's •s^. All R/o Sanyasi Para, P.S. Khamtari, Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Raipur (CG) 2. B.Satyawati D/o Shri Ishwar Rao, R/o Sanyasi Para, ; P.S. Khamtari, Raipur (C.G.) PETITION U/S 482 OF THE CODE OFCRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 ^^•:.\^ T -HC—78 ^" sn^i w R-ii* 'cT8n ^n^sF^Ni' '3'5r"4i<ii<i<i, <!>Ti1<H<is, fs<<yii'yy,'(. , . (<y.M.P.Mr». •qrtWg^f^--7-------"--1—"^--^ 200 ?- 3II^?T'q^7 (ljcli^al<{tl) TOIIW ^lf5d SIlt^I SB : HO BEE-MR7JUSriCE PWnSKBR DIWAKER a.ni ; l^ y- ?t;T f~, m <? t~! C; ^i s r-f-.a ^- <- 1 i IVlcllllSji.i C'ii.cii ll^l d? is DeutioRers. Shri Neeraj Mehta, P,L. ib .Snri.Sunil Sahu, counsel The 'pe.trtioners and the person before this Coun anc Sharma, Shri Arvind Singh, Advocate, respectively. ;.A,No,2 under Section Section 320.(5) Cr..P:C. Kave b and the i-espondent N0.2 for pd The applicatians have been duij oarties, It is stated that hencefc benveen theni as thev have outside the Courtwithout any ^ In'view of the judgment (^ B.S-Joshi & Others Vs. State SC 1386, I,A.Nos,2 and 3 area| by the parties is perrmttea to be] The result of this comDil impugned judgment and allo^ petitioners trom the oftence ij Ordered accordingly. =bi<<tfi<^i *iM<nl ^f Fs^l <Fn-t-$.K ^aifira sii^i Shri Arvind Singh. counsel icr ths ^ the State/resp, No.l. Ebr the resDondent No.2, "espondent N0,2 are present in are identified bv Shn Manish ^dvocates and Shri Sunil Sahu. 320 Cr.P.C. and I.A.No.3 uncer ;en tiled iointlv bv me oetitioners nnission to comoound the onence, ''• suoDorted by the afiidavi;s of the irth they wili not have any dispute voiuntariiv settled their dispute ressure trom anyone, if the Aoex Court in the n~.atter of rf Haryaaa & Aaother, AIR 2003 lowect anct tne comoromise desired entered into. omise would be setting aside ths 'ing the petirion and acauit the ;nder Section 498-A of ths. iPC, Sd/- pritiiikerDiwaker Judge ' llt®-