BEFORE TN.E HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ETISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) *' Cr. M. P. No.^fc'^1 Of 2011 PETITION UNDER SECTION 48JM5F CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, _1973. APPLICANTS 1. F.ft.*6-^'^'^^ a^^^1' --•'^ 2. ^ s 3. Vsf* COMPLAINANT NON-APPLICNT 4. 5. 6. Vs. Rikesh Agrawal S/o Late Mohanlal Agrawal, aged about 33 years, Janjgir Smt. Santosh Bai D/o Late Mohanlal Agrawal, aged about 47 years, Janjgir, Ku. Sraita Agrawal, D/o Late Mohanlal Agrawal, aged about 24 years, R/o Janjgir, Ku. Meenu Agrawal D/o Late Mohanlal Agrawal, aged about 24 years, Janjgir, Ku. Nisha Agrawal D/o Late Mohanlal Agrawal, aged about 22 years, Janjgir, Purani Basti - Janjgir, Tahsil 8s District - Janjgir- Champa. Smt. Pratima Agrawal W/o Rikesh Agrawal, aged about 27 years, R/o Purani Basti, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Thana City Kotwali- Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) HIGM COURT OFCttHAmSeARH ATBILASPUR Hon'ble Mr. lustice Pritinker Diwaker Cr. M. P. N0. 264/20U PETITIONERS ty,. • "f. • ^ RESPONDENT Rikesh Agrawal and ottiers Versus State of Chhattisgarh Shri Santosh Tlwari, counsel for the petitloners. Shrt Valbhav Goverdhan, P.L. for the State Shn R. K. Pali, couunsel for the complajnant. Petitloners and the complainant are atso present beforethis Court and they are identlfted by their counsel. PETmON UNDERSECTXON 482 OFTHE CRIMINAL niOCEDURE O RD E R (16.06.2011) Present petitlon has been filed fcr quashment of the proceedings in Crlminal Case No. 1471 of 2006 (Stata v. Rikesh Agrawal and others) pendlng before the Chief Judfclal Maglstrate, Ratgarh registered on the basisofRRlodged by the complainant Smt. Pratima Agrawal on 06.08.%006 vtde Cnme No. 486 of 2006 reglstered at Pollce Statton KotwaK, District Ralgarh. 2. It is stated in ttie peUtion that marrlage of the petitloner No.l Rlkesh Agrawal was sotemnized wlth Ihe complalnant Smt. Praflma Agrawal on 13.07.2005 at 3an]gir. According to ttie f»rtles, as from the beginning itsetf the complalnant cold not adjust in the famlly, there was some dispute and misunderstanding between them and after delivery of a mate child on 31.05.2006 at her parental house, Raigarh she never retumed with Uie petitioners. tt Is ^ated that out of some misunderstanding between the parties, on r't-'- ^" i«ir(l.n..Sf;:'n-?jAt, V. -^-- 06.08.2006 a report was todged by the complainant maklng certaln allegatlon against the petitioners (n relaBon to the offenceunder Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is slated that subsequently the petltioners and the complainant have decided to amicably settle thedispute between them and since 13.11.2010 the complalnant is llvlng wtth her husband l.e. petitioner No.l. According to the complainant, as now she is livlng peacefully wlth her husband and other famlly members and she has readzed that no usefut purpose would be served In prosecuting the eas^ agatnst the petitioners. The complainant has also filed relevant affldavit to thiseffect. 3. On a specific question belng put to e complalnant about the authenticity ofthe present petitlon and the afndavit shown by her, she reptied that since 13.11.2010 she (s Uvlng with her husband i.e. petitioner No.l and she is having absolutely no grudge against anyone of the family. 4. In these circumstances and atso in the light of the declsion of the Suprame Court In the matter oftt. B. Joalil and others v. Stat®of Harvana pnd aijioUwr reportecl in (2003V 4 SCC 675 wherein It has been held that tt Is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine s^fctlemeote of matrimonial dl^utes even if the offence alleged is a non- compoundable one, the petltlon is altowed. Proceecttngs in Criminal Case No. 1471 of 2006 pending befere the Chief Judiclal Maglstrate, Raigarh is hereby quashed. . __^^d Sd/- i pritinkerDiwaker Judge