IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH Cr.M.P.No. 9&5 12011 PETITIONER Smt. Manju Pandey w/o Dr. Asheesh Pandey aged about 27 years R/o Lalit Mohan Mishra, Baba Deep Singh Nagar, Near Durga Mandir, Post Vaishali Nagar P.S. Supela Bhuai Distt. Durg (CG). VERSUS SNDENTS 1. Dr. Asheesh Pandey S/o Shri Vishvanath Pandey, aged about 32 Years. 2. Shri Vishvanath Pandey S/o Late Shri Bhagvat Prasad Pandey aged about 58 yearsu 3. Smt. Sumitra Pandey W/o Shri Vishvanath Pandey aged about 52 years. 4. Shri Anand Pandey S/o Shri Vishvanath Pandey aged about 26 years. 5. Ku. Shveta Pandey @ Ku. Puja Pandey D/o Shri Vishvanath Pandey aged about 27 Years. All R/o Shankar Nagar, Goura Chowk, Ward No. 10, P.S. Mohan-\Nagar, Tah. and Distt. Durg (CG). ‘ 6. State of Chhattisgarh through — P.S. Mohan Nagar, Tah. and Distt. Durg (CG). /’ APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMIMAL PROCEDURE 1973. \é“ \‘a-K P REPO @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B. : HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOI-IAN SHRIVASTAVAJ. (Petition uIS 482 of the Cr.P.C] Appearance: Mr. Vlpin Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner‘ Mr. D. K. Dubey, counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5. Ms, Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.6. Petitioner amd respondents No. 1 to 5 are present in the Court. ORAL— ORDER (Passed on 15. 12.201 1) At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing Criminal Case No.818/2008 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. i3. Petitioner and respondents 1 to 5, Who are present in the Court, have clearly stated that they have resolved all their WW3 / Cr.M.P. No.735/2611 PETITIONER Smt. Manju Pandey Versus RESPONDENTS Dr. Asheesh Pandey and Ors. disputes amicably, differences have come to an end and they are living happily. Petitioner—Wife and respondent N0.1— husband stated that they have resolved all the disputes in the larger interest and peaceful living of both the parties. . It is further jointly submitted that in this Change circumstances, an application was filed before the Court below for bringing the criminal case to an end, however, the p ; application was partly allowed by the learned Court below, compounding offence under Sections 506-B and Section,323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, holding that the offence under Section 498—A is not compoundable one and, therefore, the parties have‘now approached before this Court by filing this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for quashing criminal proceedings, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Harvana and anotherl as also the orders passed by this Court in the cases of Sandip Kumar 85 01's. Vs. State of C.G.2 and Paras Dahariya and .‘ another Vs. State of C.G. and anothers . Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the ‘ submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as also that the wife/petitioner, husband/respondent No.1 and respondents No. l to 5 have resolved all their disputes and that there is happy reunion in the larger interest of family and parties have Clearly stated before this Court that they have 1 AIR 2003 SC 1386 2 Cr.M.P. No.684/ 10 decided on 1.10.2010 i 3 CLM‘P. No.810/10 decided on 22.11.2010 @ msolved their disputeS without any threat, caercion or any misrepresentations, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) and orders passed by this Court in the case of Sandip Kumar (supra) and Paras Dahariya {supra}, in the opinionof this Court, present is a fit case Where the criminal proceedings under Section 498—A of the IPC should be quashed as the parties have been living peacefully and resolved all their disputes. . Accordingly, the petition is allowed The criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No.818/2008 and all other connected proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate lst g Class, Durg’ are hereby quashed. ‘ ~ Sd/- l Manndra Mohan Shrivastava ‘ Judge i