"""?'"t<^::^<0^^-^^^^r.^..':X^3'u^ ^'^^^ BEI^RiE^E5HIGH<SOtIR^®^C^Ha^ .'-.! ' r:'W.;".i BliASPUS (OE^ATTISGARHl ''•©i-;M.P.:,:M'<>^f^'l.^:f:'l<of!20:l]0-' K's pEnTiONm?s .\Q-r' €.. ^' :^'". ^ A •^^y w - BSll1. ^^:si&^^^- RESPONDEaTTS ^suss^.^-. •t^^i^^^^^^:: . :31^^1^St 1. Satyendra MisKra, S/o Shm Devraj Mishra, aged abouf 35 years, ' '. ,,' .'• ' - ! 1- 2. Shn. Devraj Mishra, S/o Panneshwar^Been Mishra, aged about 60 years, 3. Krran Mishra, W/o Shri Devraj Mishra; aged abouf 55 years, All are R/o Stationpara, Rajnstfidgaon, Ward No. 8, Distt. Rajnandgapn (C.Gr.) 4. Smt. Anupa Pandey, W/o Brajesh Pandey, aged about 27 years, R/o Sahu Bada, Baloud, Distt. Durg(C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh- Through Police Station City Kotwali, Distt. RajnandgaQn (C.G.) fc •' aiaa •aP^ 2.i Sxnt.^SeemEi Mishra, W/o Shri Satyendra Mishra, aged. about 34 years, R/o Aniipain Nagar, Q.No. 55 Police Station- BasELntpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PETmON UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDU^i 1 ?"T~a>« ^ mGHCOURTOFeHKATCTSGARHATBILASPUR ¥ SB : HOM'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKBR DIWAKSR APPUCAST RESPONDENT Satye.ndra Mishra & versus State Anr. & Shii Manoj Misbra, counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri Viveb SIiarma, P. L. for tfae respondent/ State. SIuiSaiueerSiagh, couasel for resp. No. 2, Petitioners and resp. No,2 are also present before this Court and they are identified by fheir coimsel. LiJ PROCEDURB ..d^-r--^ .;--:-»•' (29.06.20111 Prcsent petition has been fUed for quasluuent of tlie proceedings in Cr. Case No. 500/10 pendiag in the Court ofjudicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnaudgaori, registered on the basis of PIR lodged t>y respondent N0.2 nainely Smt, Seema Mishra vide Crime No. 524/08 registered at poUce station City KotwaH, Rajnandgaon under Section 498-A/34 IPC & Section 3 6s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. gjlll^ 2. I3is stated in fhe petition that marriage of flle petitioner N0.1 Satyendia Mishra was solemnized wifh resp. No.2vSiut. Seenua ^ 5.5.2007 at Rapiaadgaon. Accordixig tQ fhe parties, as froni tte t)cgiEmiagitseH'ih.e resp. No.2 could aot adjust in the faimly A ?th^re was sonie dispute aad misunderstandiag between them. ; |aBfl-t;ftlie: respoiideat No.2 lefl: fhe house of fhe petitionfirs on |Kgi3gS|^Q7;^;aaa^smee^'th^:.slie',;,^:.resid .vrath ber parents; at ®|j^|Maa|.gaort^itsel£^^is^'stateei:fbat. out: a! some ; misunderstanduiE :t|R^l3ieg||eirp:i$^Barties,^;Qav24.8.08,^a-'r^^ by fhe resp. :^||I^.Sg^aa|oEBg;,c;ex't:aSiEffli%a<^^ in. relatkin to ^]s^i6 o^aee^under Sec^^ Dowry Pnoliibitidn * Act. Itis stated fhat subsequeafty ftie petitioners aud rcsp. No.2 have decided to auiicably setUe the dispute between fheni. It is ftsrfh.er stated tbata petition for obtaiaing divoroe by aiutoual consent lias aheady been filed before fhe Fanuly Court, Rajnandgaon and the same is pending. It is furttier stated that. atl fhe artlcfcs that were given during niarriage as dowiy have been retumed to the resp. N0.2 aad an agreeinent has been entered into between fhe petitioners aail resp. No.2 on 27.8.2010 wherein. the petitioners have agreed to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the resp. N0.2 aad it has been informed by the parties tbat the said amoiint Iias aiready been given to resp. No.2 and it has.been decided tbat aU the cases woiild be amicably settied. According to the coHipIainant/resp. No.2, subsequent to fiting of complaint case in relation to tfae Crime No. 524/08 she bas reaBzed that no useful purpose wouM be served ia prosecutiug fhe dispute aad she waats to setfle it once for aU. AfBdavits offhe petitioner N0. l &resp. No.2 have alsobeenffled. ^..3" _ 3. Preseiit is a petitiou for quashineut of Cr. Case. No. 500/10 penduig ia ttie court ofJudicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnaadgaon. On a speci&c question toeuig put to the coiuplainaat/resp. N6.2 about the aufh.enticity of the present petition aad the affidavit swom by her, she repUed fhat she has comproinised the matter aad is no more iaterested ia prosecuting the petitionens aud fhat her betterment would be ia Uvjng separately froni the petitiouer No. 1. < 4. Iu fhese circumstances and atso in the light of fhe decision of fheSupreme Coiirt ia fhe niatter ofJB.S.Joshf & Others v. State of Ewyana. & Another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 67S wherem it has been held fhat it is the duty of the Court to encourage geauine settlements of matrimonial disputes even if fhe offence alleged is a aon!-coiiipoundable one, ffae petition is allcwed. Proceedings in Cr. Gase.NO. 500/2010 peading ia fhe court ofjudicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon aad also th,e order dated 24.09.2010 are hereby •% ! . : 1 . Sd//- pritinker Diwaker Judge Ui