^^^•hf^^^^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Sa^Qte @@ Cr.M.P. No. b [Oof2010 PETITIONERS \'r 1. Jogendra Gajabhiye, S/o Heinraj Gajabhiye, aged about 25 years, 2. Hemraj Gajabhiye, S/o Vinobha Gajabhiye, aged about 45 < ^'^ ^ v^A- ^>^. ..-^'^^^ ,..-;-^••5^^. years' .&^"' .--;'"^^" ,..-••" ^(yf\^ 3. Smt. Indira Gajabhiye, W/o '%-- Hemraj Gajabhiye, aged about 40 years, All are R/o Village-Nilaj, Post Dasgaon, P.S. Davaniwada, District Gondia Maharastra. VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh- Through Police Station Mahila Thana, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Smt. Kanchana Gajabhiye, W/o Jogendra Gajabhiye, aged about 34 years, R/o Kosa Nagar,. Police Station-Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS """" iii i 1 1 i\ 1W"::^'^~' ^f OM. 11-3^3 /.Y^ ^" PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE K &\ "%. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. Petitioners Criminat Misc. Petition N0.846/2010 Jogendra Gajabhiye and Others Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and Another .(Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) Present: • Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the Petitioners. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. Petitioner No.l-Jogendra Gajabhiye, Petitioner No.2-Hemraj Gajabhiye, Petitioner No.3-Smt. Indira Gajabhiye and Respondent No.2-Smt. Kanchana Bajabhiye are also present in person before the Court today. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 30 of November, 2010) Heard. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tong standing dispute between the parties particularly between the petitioner No.l-husband and respondent No.2-wife has been settled and amicably resolved. He submlts that in the larger interest of both the parties and their future as also their family, they have decided to bring their entire dispute to an end. He aiso submits that the parties have also taken divorce by mutual consent and the relationship between them, are now cordial and there is no dispute remaining. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under these circumstances, when both the husband as well as the wife have settled their dispute and have appeared before this Court, the prosecution for commission of offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. would not seroe any purpose. He submits that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryanaand Others, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 138S as also the order dated 06-05-2010 passed by this Court in the case of Rajendra Patet S, Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Cr.M.P.No.307 of 2010), the interest of justice demands that the prosecution is brought to an end. it is submitted that though an application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. was moved before ths Court below, but the same has been rejected fcy the learned %-, k%..^^- .::.">- 1-- trial Court vide its order dated 25-08-2010 as the offences are not compoundable one. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this petition under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. has been fited before this Court. (4) Petitioners No.1, 2, 3 and Respondent No.2, who are present in person' before this Court were also enquired and all of them have stated that without any threat or coercion and of thetr own freewill and after taking into consideration the consequences of various proceedings and the fact that the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have obtained divorce by mutual consent, they have decided to bring their entire dispute to an end including the crimina! proceedings in their larger interest and looking to their future. The respondent No.2 has also filed an afRdavit before this Court wherein she has stated that she has entered into a compromise with the petitioner No.l-husband and amicabty settled all of the disputes outside the Court and in that background; she has moved an apptication for permission to compound the offence. 5. Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 that they have appeared before this Court to submit Uiat she has also settled all her dispute with the petitioner No.1 and has made a joint prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. S. Joshi (supra), Criminal Case No.355 of 2002 pending before the Judicia! Magistrate First Class, Durg against the petitioners for the alleged commission of offence under Section 4S8-A of the I.P.C. is hereby quashed. 6. Accordingly, the petition (Cr.M.P.No.846/201 0) is allowed. Sdl- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane