^ BEFORE THE HQN'BLE HIGH COURT QF CHHAmgGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.) Cr. M. P. No. S2-t>J4-Qf2010 SinflieBench PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. APPLICANTS :-*"; "^^ .^gss* COMPLAINANT 1. San'dip Kumar Shriwastava S/o Ramdular Shriwastava, aged about 31 years, °..'.-^'^-., 2. Ramdular Shriwastava S/o Late ..^-•t'V^^-^"r 5"'.';s\\'a-,.-•-"•""' Jainarayan, Aged about 66 years, 3. Smt. Lalita Shriwastava W/o Ram.dular SHriwastava, Aged about 56 years, All Resident of village Baabambri, House No. 129A, Housing Scheme Allapur, Thana- Jarje Town, District- 'Allahabad (U.P.). At presently R/o Urjanagar, Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) [ACCUSED] Smt. Aakariksha Shriwastava W/o Sandip Kumar Shriwastava, Aged about 28 years, D/o shri R. K. Shriwastava, R/o Urjanagar, Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Thana- Tamnar, District- RaigarhfC.G.). / Vt '•<8^ 9 HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH ; HON'BLE SHM MANINDRAMOHAN SHRTVASTAVA.J. ;;'»-£e^^,^^^^i^ APPLICANTS COMPLAINANT Cr.M.P No.684/2010 Sandip Kumar 8s Ors. Smt. Aakanksha Shrivastava Versus NON-APPLICANT State of Chhattisgarh (Petition u/S 482 ofthe Cr.P.C) Appearance: Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, counsel for the applicants. Shri R.K. Pali, counsel for complainant-Smt. Aakanksha Shriwastava Shri Avinash K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-applicant. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 01.10.2010) 1. Heard on I.A.No.2, application for exemption from personal appearance ofapplicants No. 2 & 3. 2. Taking into consideration the grounds urged in the application for / personal appearance of applicants No. 2 & 3, the application is allowed. 3. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 141/10 pending before learned Judicial Magistrate First CIass, Gharghora. 4. The applicants are facing prosecution for alleged commission of offence under Section 498- A of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. During the pendency of the criminal case, applicant No.l Sandip and complainant wife- Aakanksha have settled their disputes and differences, • amicably and have re-united. They have decided to live happy and peaceful married life and are also blessed wifh a baby girl. An application for closing the criininal case on the basis of coinpromise arrived at between the parties was moved before learned trial Court under the signatures of the applicant No.l and his wife, fhe complainant. The said applicadon has been rejected by the leamed trial Court on the ground that the offences are not coinpoundable. 6. Heard on I.A.No.l, application for permission to compound the offence. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as counsel for the complainant- wife jointly submitted before this Court that applicant No.l-husbnad and complainant-wife, during the pendency of the criminal case, linally united by bringing an end to all disputes, differences and resentment and have decided to live together in their inarried life. It is also submitted before this Court that in such a situation whether the husband and wife have re-united, it would be in the interest of justice and interest of the parties that prosecution is brought to an end. 8. Leamed counsel for the applicants relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of HaiTana and another1. 9. I have gone through the records of the case. It is revealed that the applicants and complainant filed an application before the Court below for closing the criminal case along with Parivarik Samjhauta Patra (Annexure P-5). The application filed before the Court below is singed by both the parties and the Samjhauta Patra is also singed by all the > AIR 2003 SC 1386 -3- :Y;'•^ parties. Applicant No.l-Sandip Kumar Shrivastava, husband 8s complainant- Aakanksha Shrivastava are both present in the Court. Upon being enquired both have stated that in the interest of their married life and for the welfare of fheir, child they have resolved all their disputes and differences and have been united and are now living a happy niarried life. Taking into consideration the statements made by applicant-No. 1 Sandip Kumar Shrivastava, husband and complainant Smt. Aakanksha Shrivastava, wife, the application (I.A.No.l) for grant of permission to compound the offence is allowed. 10. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the statements made before the Court byApplicant No.l-Sandip Kumar Shrivastava, husband 85 complainant- Aakanksha Shrivastava, wife and perusing Samjhauta Patra and applicadons filed before the Court below, I am satisfied that a case for quashing entire criminal proceedings is made out, placing reliance in the judgment of Supreme Court in the case ofB.S. Joshi (supra). 11. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the appli.cants in respect of which the applicants are facing prosecution in Criminal Case No.141/ 10 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghora are hereby quashed. 12. Petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Praveen