IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Criminal IVIisc. Petition No. OF 2010 PETITIONERS 1. Pushpa Singh Rajput W/o. Lokeshwar Singh, aged about 30 years, R/o. Gaushala road, Hamal Para, Kharsia Distt. Raigarh(C.G.) (ACCUSED PERSONS) 'a .^sy ff.^.:^%< '••:'•'.*•''" . >»••' ft^ ^ 2. Lokeshwar singh Rajput, @ Kallu, S/o. Basudev singh, aged about 50 years. 3. Narendra Singh Rajput S/o. Basudev Singh, aged about 50 years. 4. Yashwant Singh Rajput @ Munna, S/o. Basudev singh, aged about 40 years. 5. Deepa Thakur W/o. Narendra singh Thakur, aged about 43 years. 6. Smt. Seeta Singh Thakur W/o. Yashwant singh, aged about 38 years. 7. Smt. Saraswati Devi Thakur W/o. Basudev Singh, aged about 68 years. All R/o. Village-Jagmahan, P/o. Bhatgaon, P/s. Bhilaigarh DistrictRaipur(C.G.) 8. Sharad . Kumar Kshatriya @ Munna, S/o. Niranjan Singh, aged about 46 years. 9: Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o. Sharad Kumar, agecl about 39 years. Both R/o. Village- Senduras P/s. Sarsiva, District Raipur.At Present R/o. sec.3. No. 748 Balco, Township Korba, District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, through, Station House Officer, Police Station- Kharsia, District-Raigarh. PETITION UNDER SECTION CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE CODE OF *ra**"' SiiW SSwr 1II 1tl •Uli:^; :.^il'^^"- i!BRi:; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice PritinkerDiwaker) Cr.M.P.No. 619 of 2010 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS VERSUS Pushpa Singh Rajput and others State of Chhattisgarh Shri Abhishek Saraf counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PL for the respondent/State. Petifioners are also present before this Court and they are identified by their counsel. PETITION UNDERSECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ORDER (19.08.2010) Present petition has been filed for quashment of the proceedings ir^ Criminal Case No. 46/2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrat^ First Class, Kharsia, District Raigarh, registered on the basis of FIR lodged by petitioner No.1 namely Pushpa Singh Rajput vide CrimeNo, 129/2002 registered at Police Station Kharsia, District Raigarh. 2. It is stated in the petition that marriage of the petitioner NQ.I! Pushpa Singh Rajput was soiemnized with petitioner No.2 Lokeshwar Singh Rajput on 20.5.2002 at Kharsia. According to the parties, as from the beginning itselfthe petitioner No.1 could not adjust in the family, ther^ was some dispute and misunderstanding between them and after about days of the incident she left the house of her husband and since then she is residing with her parents at Kharsia itself. It is stated thatout of somg misunderstanding between the parties, on 2.6.2002 a report was lodged by the petitioner No.1 making certain allegation against the petitioners Nos. 2 to 9 in relation to the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is stated that subsequently the petitioners have decided to amicably settle the dispute between them. It is further stated that g petition for obtaihing mutual divorce has been filed on 14.7.2010 which ig pending vide Civil Suit No. 59-A/2010. It is stated that in the proceedings •"-•.-^ "f ^:s^ • ^i^":;-.^-—^-^ i IK"3! i K-'"%. MK... °' ;^^^;^ .'.?¥ 'IBfc^"^1 -rui:;! 'BSHi 4'B' » sy- •K Iffi-^ 1816 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an agreement ha^ been entered into between the pefitioner Nos.1 and 2 on 8.7.2010 and the petitioner No.2 has agreed to pay Rs. 1,75,000 to the petitioner No.1i and it has been decided that all the cases would bewithdrawn. According to the complainant/ petitioner No.1, subsequent to filing of complaint cas^ in relation to the offence under Section 498-A IPC, she has realized that no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the dispute and shg wants to settle it once for all. Affidavits of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have also been filed. ! 3. Present is a petition for quashment of Criminal Case No. 46/2009 , pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharsia. On a specific question being put to the complainant/petitioner No.1 about th^ authenticity of the present petition and the affidavit sworn by her, she ' replied that she has compromised the matter and is no more interested in prosecuting the petitioners 2 to 9 and that her betterment would be irj living separatelyfrom the petitioner No.2. | 4. In these circumstances and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi and others v. State of Harvana and another reported in (2003)4 SCC 675 wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes even if the offence alleged is a hon-compoundable one, the petition is allowed. Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 46/2009 ; pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kharsia, District Raigarh and alsothe orderdated 9.7.2010 are herebyquashed. , F, Sd/- Pritinker Diwakar Judge