ll IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.) G. Cr. M. P. No. a” éB I 2011 Smggga Ewvw Shantanu Mitra, son of Shri Pranobh Mitra, aged about 4O years 2. Pranobh Mitra, son of at hri B.B. Mitra, aged about” V ars b J 0. 3, Smt. Malina Mitra wife of Shri Pranobh Mitra, aéed abouta ha“, years All above residents of Qrt. No. 32-12/13, Near K.H. Memorial School, Jawahar Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhaftisgarh through Station House Officer, Mahila Thana, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Smt. Sapna Mitra wife of Shri Shantanu Mitréi, a'ged about 32 years. resident of Near Bangali Aata Chhaki, Opposite of Chandra Shekhar Azad, Higher Secondary School, Panchsheel Nagar, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh : Criminal Case No. 543/2007 if : 40/2007 y Mahila ThaK ,» Durg Section 498-A read with n (t, Section 34 3r the indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Ac Q 8 cA APPLICATION UND-ER SECTION 485%: THE C E OF C IMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE ORDER/ORDERS AND DIRECTION/DIRECTIONS Amrfto Das, dvo/j Case No. Crime No. Police Station Offence APPLICANTS @ HIGH COUBT OF CHHATTISGABH ; BILASPUR Singie Bench; Hon’ble Shri Maningra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Present:- Shri Amrito Das along with Ashwani $ingh, counsel for the applicants along with applicants No.1 to 3. who are present in person. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is also present in the Court ORAL ORDER (Passed on 28-09-2011) Heard. 2. At the request of the Court. Ms. Sunita Jain, leamed Panel Lawyer, also represented respondent No.2 for the purposes of clarincation regarding receipt of the balance amount of Rs.2 Lakh. 3. Respondent No.2. who is present in the Court. has accepted the demand draft of Rs.2 Lakh given by the applicant No.1, which was handed over to her. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants as well as respondent No.2 submitted before the Court that in the larger interest of both the parties. they have amicably resolved all their disputes past and the present. lt is also submitted that the decree of divorce has already been ranted vide judgment and decree dated 06-03-2010 passed in Civil Suit No.129-N2008 by the Family Court, Durg and the amount. which is payable under the said decree includes the amount of R52 Lakh, in respect of which. the draft of Rs.2. Iakh has been handed over to respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in these circumstances and in view of what was stated even in the divorce proceedings. the parties moved an application for compounding the offence, but the same has been WWWa Cr.M.P.No.563I2011 Agglicants Shanhnu Mina and others Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and another ’ _\ A a www w V W1, v yw reiected by the Court beiow as the same is not compoundable. therefore. now, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1386 as also the order dated 06-052010 passed by this Court in the case of Rajendra Patel & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Another, (Cr.M.P.No.307 of 2010), the preseht petition for quashing the criminai proceedings has been med. it is jointiy submitted by the applicants as well as by the respondent No.2 that in these circumstances, the proceedings may be quashed. 6. The respondent No.2. who is present in person, has also submitted that as all the disputes have been resolved amicably and the balance amount of R52 lakh has been paid by handing over demand draft, she is also not inclined to take or continue any action much less allegation of commission of offence alleged against the applicants. 7. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, as also the contents of the decree of divorce and that the parties had moved an application for compounding the offence before the Court below and in view of the joint statements made by the applicants and the respondent No.2. who are present in person and in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Joshi and Others and the order passed by this Court in the case of Rajendra Patel & Others (supra), this petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Durg, in Criminal Case No.543 of 2007 against the applican$ are hereby quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Sd/— Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane