IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) Cr.lW.P. N0. '^-^5 / 2010 APPLICANTS ^^.^ ^^ .-•" 'f... ^.»" ^ ^^^' "^'s-^ ^i" V^i. >$•>- vry ;...--'^^r" r^ i<-' \yv ^ssa!sa!?ia3s, •<6i"". 3-' 1. Neelesh Katare, son ofShri H. D. Katare, aged about 35 years 2. H. D.-Katare, son of Late Shri G. L. katare, aged about 64 years 3. Lakshmi katare, wife of Shri H. D. Katare, aged about 60 years 4. Pooja Katare, wife of Shri Narendra Tiwari, aged about 28 years 5. Divya Katare, wife of Shri Amit Nayak, aged about 33 years All above resident of A-26, Vaibhav Apartment, ^arvadharm Colony, Kolar Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 6. Manisha Mishra, wife of Shri Sanjay Mishra, aged about 36 ?&*?J°'1 7. Saa}eev Mishra, son of Shri V. hf. Mishra, aged about 36 years Both resident of 44-A, LIG Harshwardhan Nagar, Mata Mandir, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. VERSUS 1. 2. ,f" State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Smt. Vibhu Katare, daughter of Shri Omprakash Dubey, aged about 35 years, resident of 9/18, Priyadarshini Parisar (East), Supela, Bhilai, Tehsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 &F THE CODE OF CRIWIINAL RR^CEDURE CODE FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE ORDER/ORDERS AND DIREeTlpN/DIRECnONS -HG—78 sn^? v\ h-v^ ^5H sn^T sfrf^i ^ ^ST •^)|<<|<'fAI, ®tll'H<itf,fqdl'Mll,< . ^>-M.f-^.?)^s/Z<s)c> ••/•" gn^r 'TSW ('^f3^slf) l^UW ^lft? CT^I SB: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Moha 29-10-2010 Shri Amrito Das, counsel for Shri Avinash K. Mishra, P.L. Respondert No.2-Smt. Vibhi( Applicants are also present ii|) Heard. The applicants have filed tt Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal of 2003 pending befor®the Judici^ out of Crime No.51/2002 wherein alleged commission crf offence undj of I.P.C. and Seotion 4 ofthe Dowry Leamed counsel for the appl the respondent No.2A;omplainan| amicably in a better interest andth^ of various temperamental differert criminal case was instituted and have finally settled their dispute in of child, born out of the wMllock. U submits that for proper maintenan^ an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs has alre^ which shows the bonafide of the a^ all differences between the partiesl theCourt, also submits that tookingl she has decided to settle all the dij i»i<<[ci<fli tiw<fl tf fVS <F>itji< ^? 3TfaH 3II^?T n Shrfaastava. J. he applicants. w the State/respondent No.1. Katare is pr^ent in pereon. person. tis petition under Section 482 of the proc^edings bearing Criminal Case No.291 (1 Magistrate First Ctass, Durg arising |the applicants are being tried fbr the fer Section 498-A reacl with Section 34 Prohfbition Act. p (icants submits that the applicants and have finally settlai their dispute future of all. He submits that because &ces in the husband and the wife, dut"ing the pendency of the case, parties the interest of all as also in the interest learnal oounsel for the applicant also te of respondent No.2-wife and child, |dy been paid to the respondent No.2 blicant towards amicable settlem'ent of Respondent No.2, who is present in |to tlie future of her child and her own, i^pute and does not want to prosecute /~^'< XI-HG—1 3%T ^||<L[HA|, giflly'Ko, l^cTRTg? C^-. 1^\ .P. r^^^J 2-o! O 3n^?TTra^' (' an^? w p;-fi+, .•?8IT3II^[Wtfe TCIIWHft^SII^f rL- i*i<<!<-i<fl-< im?ff 4 fs<S <[«i«;i< ^sffiflTOT^T 4 the criminal proceedings pending a^ainst the appllcants. The respondent No.2 has moved an application befcjre the trial Court for compounding the offence, but t^ie same has been rej^cted vide order dated 11-04-2007 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'ttiatlKesaEn&isnotmaintainable. Leamed State counsel does r| Taking into consideration th^ submission of learned counsel forl No.2, contents of their applicati<i offences and the judgment of the Durg (Annexure P-5) on the ground ot have any ofcjeotion. totality of the cireumstances and the the applicants and the respondent in (I.A.No.1) for comf»unding the Supreme Court in ttie case of B. S. Joshi and Others vs. State of H^ryana and Ottiers, AJ.R. 2003 S.C. i3W as also the order dated 06-05-^010 passed ty this Court in the case of Ryendra Pate/ & Ottiers v&|S(ate of ChhaMsgarh S Anottier rCr.M.P.No.307 of 2010J, the apF|lication (Cr.M.P.No.770 of 2010) is allowed. Criminal R-oceedings per(ding before the Judicial Magistrate Firet Class, Durg in Criminal Case F)lo.291 of 2003 against the applicants are hereby quashed, in exereise of itiherent powers under Section 482 of theCr.P.C, Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Tumane