Yf'i wgh amen BEFORE HON'BLE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Cr M.P. No. <3? \0 , H /20.1\0 1. Applicants/Accused :- Bhupender Singh, aged about 31 year's, S/o Late Shri Surjeet Singh, Private Service, R/o 0—16, Pawan Vihar, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, P.S.H. New Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Smt. Harinder Kaur W/o Late Shri Surjeet Singh aged about 62 years R/O C-16, Pawan Vihar, New Raj endra Nagar, Raipur, P.S.H. New Rajendra Nagar, Tahsjl & District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Smt. Raj eender Kaur aged about 36 years W/o Inderjeet Singh Bhamra, House wife R/o 'Shanti Nagar Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) Inderjeet Singh Bhamra aged 39 year‘s ’ S/o Shri Amrit Singh Bhamra R/o Shanti Nagar Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) VersuS Smt. JaSprit Kaur W/o Bhupender Singh aged about 28 years, D/o Shri Niranjan Singh, Tadda, R/o Quarter No. 16-B Street Avenue -C-Sector —'2, Bhilai, Police Station House— Sector -6 , Tahsil and District Durg C.G. State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Mahila Police Station, Durg (C.G.) , APPLICATION UNDER SECTION482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE Non-Applicant/ Complainant S / l l @ HIGH QQURT OF QHHATTmQARH AT BILAgiPUR’ single Bengh : Hgn'ble Mr. Jus‘h'ge Prmnkgr Diwaksr Cr.M,P. No. 210 of mm Anoiicanfs Bhupendgr Singh 5.1 Q’rhgrs Accused Versus Non-agpiicm‘ts/ Smt Jaspr‘if Kaur' w/o Bhupandgr Complainani‘ Singh & another. _Shri Ashck Vermcx, ccgnsei far ’rhe apphcam‘s, 5hri MRS. Bhafia, counsel for *he nan-applicanT No‘ 1‘ Shri Akhii Mishm, counsei for ‘H’Ie non-applican? Na. 2. Applicgnts Bhupgnder Singh, Smt Harindar' Kqur, 5mt Rajeender‘ Kaur' & Inder‘jeef Singh ghamra and The ccmpiainanfx’non-appiicanf No. 1 namely 5m+. Jaspr'h‘ Kam‘ are aiso presen? in person. They are iden‘iified by "rheir Fespecfive ccunsei. APPLICATION UNDER SECTIGN 4&2 OF THE C€3DE OF QIIWINAL PROIJEBUQE. x, Q R D E R. (09.04.2010) Present pefi'Hon has been filed far‘ quashing The criminal case No.575/ZOO7 pending before The Judicia! Magisfr'mg, Fir'sf Ciass, Durg on The basis 0f The F.I,R. lodged by the respondent No. 1 vide Crime Na 23/2007 reg§sfered m“ Mahiia Pause Stm‘ion‘ Dung. Z. I‘r is stated in The. pefi’rian That the marriage 6f the nan— applicam‘ Na 1/camplainanf with applican’r NG‘ 1 nameiy Bhupender' Singh was sclemnized an 29.11k2006 (11‘ Bhiiai. \‘ According To *he panties, from the beginning there used to be ‘ some dispute and misunderstanding between them and. as unfortunately the couple could not adjust, they started iiving separately after 9.5.2QQ7. It has been furthzr subniitted that due to some, misunderstanding between the parties, on ' 23:6:2997 g writtgn gampigin’r wag: lodggd by Thg cgmplginm’; making gllggg'rign agginst all fhg apphggm‘s for subjegting her 1o cruelTy. IT has been furfher' submiffed by The parties fhm subsequenfly, The non-applicam No. 1 and The uppiican‘r Na 1. have mufually agreed to live separateQy and. by The mumai consent, a divorce decree has already been passed an 18.11.2009 vide Ex.P—4. Furthermore, on 24.4‘20Q9 vide Annexure P—3, in the apphcafign ander Seetian 1&5 9f The Cede cf Criminal Procedure, praceedings have alea been finalized ‘ between The husband end ihe wife where the lump 5am amgunt of Rs.3,25,000/— has been agreed ta be given by the applicant No. 1 to his wife: According to the complainant, 5l.absequently she has realizea that no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the criminal case and it would be better to settle the dispute once for all. Counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 hols also filed joint applications for quashing the FIR and also for the quashment of the criminal case No. 575/2007 pending before‘the Judicial Magistrate, First Clase, Durg. Joint applications filed today, before the Court has been duly supported by the affidavit of- all the accused persons and also the affidavit of the complainantmon-applicant Not 1. Non- applicant No.1/ complainant has statedthat she has no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed against the applicants despite it was initiated on the basis of herl complaint. 3. This Court put a specific Question to thei complainant/non-applicant No. 1 about the authenticity of the l application and affidavit jointly filed by her and the application ‘ dated 9.4.2910 to which she replied that she has compromised l the ma’rter‘, she is no mare inferes’red 1'0 prosecute fhe applicant No“ 1 and ’ro fur‘rher g¢ for litigatian. 5m gums that she cannot live with thg applicants and it wouid be better for her and the applicant No. 1 to live. gepgmtely to have a better future. 4. In these circum3tances and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of B5. Joshi F, I and others v. state at Hogarth and another reported in A (2003) 4 $€C é75 wherein it has been heid that it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes even if the offence alleged is o non-compoundoble one, the petition is allowed: FIR dated 23,6.2907 registered ot Mohilo Police Station Durg vide Crime No.575/2007 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Goes, Durg for the offence punishable under Section 498aA/34. of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed, / l Sd/- i l Pritinker Diwaker i i Judge