IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Si<»3(®Ben?«ft Criminal Misc. Petition No. )0 T OF 2010 PETITIONERS 1. Rakesh Kumar Agrawal aged about 31 years, S/0 Shri Anand Kumar Agrawal. I® 2. Rajesh Agrawal, aged about ^ 31 years S/0 Shri Anand Kumar Agrawal. »-*'• .Yf^ 3., Anand Kumar Agrawal, aged about 56 years, S/0 Late Shri Prahlad Rai Agrawal. 4. Ratosh Kumar Agrawal, aged about 29 years, S/0 Shri A.K. Agrawal '—^S..TS^SS 5, Smt. Prem Lata Agrawal, aged about 51 years W/0 Shri A.K. Agrawal. 6./ Poonam Agrawal , aged about 29 years, W/0 Rajesh Kumar Agrawal. All are R/0 Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1;- State of Chhattisgarh, through, District Magistrate, Raipur^ District Raipur, (C.G.) 2. 3. Statjon House OfRcer, Poljce Station Pandari Mowa, Raipur, District Raipur, (C.G.) Archana Jain (Agrawat) W/0 Rakesh Agrawal, D/0 Suresh Jain, aged about 27 years, R/0 Jain Road, Titalagarh, District- Griooa. fiol^vv^ir (js-n&^^)' PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR OUASHM^IT OF THE F.I.R. AND FURTHER PROCEEDING. HIGH COIIKT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR SB : HON'BLB MR. JU8TICE PRITINKER DrWAKBR CR.M.p.no. iST^aoio APPLICAMT8 versus NON-APPUCANT Rakesh Kuaiar Agrawal & Ofhers State ofChhatdsgarh & Others Shri Awadh Tripathi, counsel for th.e appUcaats. Shri Vivek Sharma, P.L. for fhe State. Shri Mansih Sharaaa, counsel for the resp.NO.3. Applicaats 2,3 5 & 6 iiamely Rajesh Agrawal, Anand launar Agrawal, Smt. Premlata Agrawal & Poonam Agrawal and fhc respondent NO.S/coiupIainant nainely Archaua Jaiu (Agrawafl are also present ia person. They are identified by fheir respective coitasel. PETITION UNDBR 8ECTION 482 OF THB CR.P.C. ^ <- ORDBR (08.04.2010) The present petition has been filed for quashiag the Crimiaal Case No. 1884/2009 peading beforc the Chief Judicial Magistrate Raipur on the basis ofPIR lodged by respondcnt N0.3 vide Cr. No. 5/09 registered at police station Pandri Raipur. 2. It is stated iu fhe petition that the marriage of the respondent No.3/complainant was solemnized with fhe applicaat N0.1 Rakesh Kumar Agrawal on 9,12.2005 at Raipur. Accordmg to fhe parties, fi»m fhe begmiung there used to be some dispute between them and unfortunately as ttie couple could not adjust, fhey are living separately siace 4.1.2009. It has becn further stated ftiat due to sonie inisunderstanding between thein, FIR dated 6.1.2009 was lodged by the complaiaant inakiag aUegation ^aiast the appUcan.ts for subjeoting her to cruelly. It is also adanitted that a petition for niutual divorce has already been filed by fhe petitioner No.l & respondent no.3 before fhe Principle Jiidge, Panifly Court, Raipur on 1.2.2010 wbich is stiU pendiag. Subsequenfly, the coiaplaiaant bas reaiized that no useful purpose would be seryed in pursuing the said coiaplamt aad it would be better to setfle fhe dispute once for aU. This petition is duly supported by fbc afBdavit of fbe applicants 2,3,5 & 6 and tiie complainant/resp. N0.3. Coxaplainant Archana Jaia (Agrawal) who is picsent in fbe Coiut has categoricaUy stated fhat she is no more interested in. prosecuting the case aad wants to coiDiproiiuse fhe matter. Both the parties have stated that fhe earlier comproimse (Annexure P/2) recorded between flieiu was with free consent of the parties aad without any fear or pressure froin anyone. Respondent NO.S/complainant has stated fhat she has no objection if the enture crimiaal proceedings against fhe appUcants which bave been initiated on the basis of her coinplaint are quashed. 3. This Court put a specific question to fhe complamaat/resp. N0.3 about the authenticity offhe afGdavit and the petition as filed under Section 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. to which she repUed that she has already couipronused the inatter aad she is no inore io.terested to furfher prosecute the applicants aad to gq for Ut^ation. She has stated'ttiat she canitot Uve with the appUcaats and has teken a decision to diyorce fhe applicaat No.l so fhat fhey caa live sepacately and can ttmik over their future. 4. Thus, keepiag in view the fact fbat parties tiave already entered into a compromise and everyfhiug bas been settled outside the Court, being very inuch miadful of verdict of the Supreine Court m the matter of B.S-JoshI & Others V. State of Haryaaa 8s Another reported ia (2003) 4 SCC 675 wherem it has been held that it is the dufy offhe Court to encourage genuiae settlements of inatrimorual disputes even tf the oflFence aUeged is a non- coinpouadable one, fhe petition is allowed. Tbe FIR dated 6. 1.2009 registered at poUce station Paadri, Raipur vide Cr. N0. 5/09 and cpnsequent to that Cr. Case N0. 1^884/2009 pendmg before fhe Chiefjudicial Magistrate, Raipur for fbe offeace pzuiishable under Sections 498-A/34 offhc IPC, is hereby quashed. Sd"- ^auet ^V6P^ TO^B^sssiaM^iss^iytssuiaEseBBiMl