a€a$ %$£ ama mw $ Eamna%aa w amk@HmW §§ ma? %31’1%ma11%$l HIGH COURT OF CHHA’E‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANTS NON-APPLICANT Anand Soni, S/o Punamchand C Noni, aged about 27 years, Punamchand Soni, S/o Late Surajbhan Soni, Aged about 54 years. Smt‘. Sharda Devi, W/ o I’unamchand Soni, Aged about EIO years. A rn 1 R/o Kotara Road, ’I‘hana 86 ahsil 8r, District Raigarh (CG) ana Devi D/o Surajbhan Soni, t ged about 47 years, R/o Kotara Road, Thana & Tahsil 8t District Raigarh (CG) ,‘amt. fined Soni, S/o. Punamchand §oni, Aged about 25 years. 1 Kiran Soni, D/o Punamchand Soni, Aged about 29 years, R/o Kotara Road, 'l‘hana 85 Tahsil 8G District Raigarh (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh hrough : District Magistrate, Rairagh (C.G.) ,/ 7* GRPRJ FS/246 2/2007 i~ 50‘000. WW,W§,W in 200 CR M P NO 64 OF 2007 1. Wm (Was!) 1. T WW, §W W <3,W Wm WW (Witt) Hi 200 wm\m WWW mmm Z WWW§WW gsaimaném $00mv Present: Mr. S.K. Tiwari, counsel for the applicants. Mr. Arun Sao, GA for the State/ non-applicant No. 1. Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, counsel for the non-applicant No. 2. ORAL (6th Se] Dhirendra Mishra, J The applicants by the ins itant petition under Section 482 ‘ of the Code of Criminal Proced the order dated 8.11.2006 p 57/06 as well as criminal p , 1726/04 pending in the Cou Raigarh (CG). adjudication of this petition are .nt No. 2/complainant swore an tioning therein that she‘ intends Hindu customs as she is in love :port of the non—applicant No. 2 her to cruelty in the name of ‘Adicial Magistrate forwarEd the Brief facts necessary for that on 25.1.2002 non—applice affidavit of Annexure P/l men to marry applicant No. 1 as per with him. Thereafter, on the rn that the‘ applicants subjected demand of dowry, the Chie ’Iaya Soni D/o Banwari Lal .grawal, Aged about 25 years, t/o Bhajandipa, Raigarh Tahsil 5 District Raigarh (CG) ORDER )tember 2007) ure have prayed for quashing of assed in criminal revision No. 'oceeding in criminal case No. rt of Chief Judicial Magistrate, GRPRJ — FS/246 2/2007 ——- 50,000. f WW, mug, W Wm Hi 200 WW (W) WWW mm\m ‘Wm‘sam WW§WW €5W$¥I§¥I ' complaint to the P.S. - City KQ,‘ :Wali, Raigarh for enquiry under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. whereupon offence under Sections ~egistered and charge sheet was 'ned trial Court framed charges he IPC and 3 85 4 of the Dowry )1icants. The non-applicant No. a civil suit bearing No. 156A/03 Class—II, Raigarh and in the said as granted to the non—applicant t No. 1 from contracting second arred an appeal in the Court of II ;arh and the order of temporary )f non-applicant N0. 2 was set Thereafter, an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by non-applicant No. 2 which was registered as Misc. Cr. Case No. 85/03 ir er, the application of the non— applicant No. 2 for interim maintenance was rejected on the. ground that non-applicant No. 2 has failed to prove the marriage. Subsequently, the applicants and non-applicant No. 2 entered into a compromise on 13. 1.2006 Vide settlement deed of Annexure P/7 and by th admitted that they are desi case No. 1726/04, Civil. S 148/05 unde‘r' Section 1 FS/246 2/2007 ii 50,000 498A and 323 of the IPC was filed in the Court and the leai under Sections 498A, 323 of t Prohibition Act against the ap] 2 / complainant also instituted in the Court of IV Civil Judge, suit a temporary injunction w No. 2 restraining the applican marriage. The applicants pref Additional District Judge, Raig injunction passed in favour < aside. the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh. Howey: e said compromise the parties s of compounding the criminal 't No. 156A/O3 and Case No. CrPC pending in the Family GRPRJ 7/ u r WW (W) WWW mm‘m WWW WW wW 4 amimanéw Court. In the compromise deedV’it was also mentioned that the applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 2 were in fact in love ‘ with each other, however, since their relationship was not y are not willing to reside together. On the basis of above compromise it was prayed that the proceedings initiated by t e non—applicant No. 2 may be quashed. It is also brought to the otice of this Court that on the basis of above compromise de d, civil suit No. 156A/O3 and approved by their relatives, already been compounded in Lok Adalat vide documents of Annexure P/9 and P/ 10. An ffidavit has also been sworn by the present applicants that sin e then non-applicant No. 2 has already got married in the year 2005 and she is blessed with a child: ' rned counsel for non-applicant No. 2 also submits that parties have entered into a compromise vide document of Annexure Mrs. Hamida Siddique, 1 7 and on the basis of abové compromise civil suit No. 15 A/O3 and M.Cr.C.No. 148/05 pending 'in the Family Co Raigarh have already been compounded in Lok Adalat. Non—applicant No. 2 has been ' married since then in the m nth of November 2005, she is living peacefully with her‘hu‘sb nd at Jaipur, Rajasthan and is blessed with Hal child. She further submits that she has FS/246—— 2/200iw 50,0o0. i v ,‘Vii a e / u , mm mwm wm'm WWW WW WW %3IT%I113II%$T received instructions from non-a 'pplicant No. 2 that she has no objection if the criminal proceedings in criminal case No. 1726/04 against the applicants is quashed. In View of the above averments made in the petition, which are not denied by learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2, continuance of the procieedings in criminal case No. 1726/04 on the basis of above c process 'of law. In the result, the petiti 8.11.2006 of Annexure P/12 proceedings against the appl 1726/ O4 are hereby quashed. Order dated is set aside and criminal cants in criminal case No. , Sd/- DHIRENDRA MISHRA Judge )n is allowed. GRPRJ FS/246 2/2007 _- 50,000. E1 200 W W (13W) omplaint would'be an abuse of