IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. M. P. N0. ji_a-^ /2010 i n ^.*, Ra \^' A»tf:w? al i'3 ^—7^ APPLICANTS: 1.' Ramdhani Pandey S/o Late Shri Jhinku Pandey, aged about 75 years. ON BAIL \v°.^5^ ^^ 3. .;•" K.f' O ^.'' ..•'-'c^--r\^.-^'' •.,^;:-5S^ ^c^--^^-4- ^^- f.^ Ky -\s 2. Smt Samrati Pandey W/o Raradhani A Pandey, aged about 60 years. Pavan Pandey S/o Ramdhani Pandey, aged about 32 years. Shyam Bihari Pandey S/o Ramdhani Pandey, aged about 45 years. All R/o Jon-3/ street No. 9/Quarter No.8-F Bhilai, Khurshipar, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT. : i. The State of Chhattisgarh, lp Through: P.S. Mahila Thana, Durg (C.G.) APPLICATIONjJNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CmMINAL PROCBDURE DECIDE THE CRlMINAL CASE IN RESPECT OF COMPROMISED FILE BYTHE COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED/APPLICANT. ^ E^" .. ""W, i'w;'?^-.. '•-.^ ^?" .^^^-J '-^6'S>'. '" -^.^ •y -^^''^ . '-sf'^'^, f' •^; ^^^ '^ ^ <<» »e »^s *** 311^1 ^il R;1 ^^ STT^T a*+iiqi ^ ^•s[ '^w\v\^, riitfly'iti, fa'ni'My ^Cr^^-.:^^^200 3fI^I'tT5RT ('^f3^X?) ^nwofei aii^i SB: Hon'bte Sbri Manindra Mohm_S w-ea-wm Shri R. K. Jain, counsel forthe df ShriAshish Gupta, P.L. fbrthe Shri Abhay Tmari, counsel fbr n| Applicants No.1 to 3 and noft) Court Heard. With the consent ofthe parties, This petition under Section 48j applicants for quashing Criminal Cas^ Judfcial Magistrate Firet Class, Duig, No.2, offence under Section 4%-A, 493 of Dowry Prohibition Act has been regls(e This petiUon has been filed by ground ttiat the parties namety applicat thelr dispute amicably, under whfch, and futly safisTied with the applicantsl harassment to non-applfcant ^to.2. It is submitted that an applicattoh ofthe Cr.P.C. was filed before the Cour basis of a consent airived at belween rejectBd by the Court below on the compoundabte underthe law. Submission of teamed counset selllement, which B ncw arrived at the non-apptteant No.2 has no members, who are made accused hi the parBes, it would be expedient In Uie| betMteen grievante th^ <tii^f<'i''il-f ^wvS 4 fs^ <fa«;i< ^iaiRmsTi^i rivastawa.J. licants. teteftion-appllcant No. 1. m-applteant No.Zfeomptainant af^licant No^ are also present in the ie case is heard finally. of the Cr.P.C. has been ffled by he No.301/2007 pending in Uie CouU of w?ierein on the complaint of non-applfcant -A/34, 406, 406/34 of I.P.C. & Section 4 ls(ered and the applicants are being tried. |ie applicants on the submission and tte |ite and non-appltoant No.2 have settted non-applicant No^ Is reskting happily and now there is no dispute or any nolw purporting to be under SecUon 320(2) below for compoundirg oflences on ihe e pariies, however, the same has been that the offences alteged are not gi^und ftar the parfies is that in the light of (sen the pariies and keeping in viewthat against her husband or otter (amBy criminal case and in tfte intere^ of all lintsrest ofjustice that the criminal case 1 TI !'<*' U2%, '^^\ ^^fe 1 J / ^ •'"TO-HE—iS srfei ^r r<<-fi«k w sn^r st>*<it> <T7. WHW\ fhWh ^ST ^]<(|(»|<L|^ ®ti|y<i<o,fqniyy,< . Gr.M'^-.cl1syzo\ RW^?""""""""""""" V% 200 3T^?I TRq7 ('j'lf^'l'^T) TCIIWdfelSili?! qutshed. pending against the appticants is placed reliance upon the judgment in State ofHaiyana and Offters, AJJt. SlpOS SjC. Submissions made by teamed by teamed counsel for the non-applictints. lather-in-taw, mottier-in-law and the h(<sband as WBII as non-applicant No.2, who| enquired, admit and state ttiat they ha') and nowthere is nodispute pending is restellng with her husband since Tata'ng Into consideraiion M have setUed thet: matrimonial dispu^ pending before any Court of law as amicable setUement, re-unton has vwfe are Ihnng tpgether since nmre th^t ends of juslice would be served, if th4 Case No.301/2007 for Uieoffences un<ter of I.P.C. & Section 4 of Dcwrf Prohib|tion Magislrate First Class, Durg is quashei|l oftheCr.P.C. Taking into consyerafion the the admission of husbarid and the wiy amicable setdement has been arrwedl ailcwed.Criminal Case No.a)1/2007 p^nding Class, Durg, against the applfcants ln| 498-A, 498-A^4, 406, 406/34 of I.P.C( quashed. b4tween last (fwre than die a^o co(ne CM<i[<n*i1Ti ^w^ff^f fs%i if^^-K. ^aiRnan^r 1-eamed counsel for fl»e parties the case of S. & JosWand Otfte»s•». fp93SJG.13Se. ^ouisel for ttie awlksanls are not eNsputed ^ints. The a 'ica"ts No.1 to 3, w*io are respedjvely of non-applteant No^ |are present in the Court, upon being |'e amicably settted their danding disputB the pariies and nm-applieant No^ oneyear. complainant and fte accused persons amicably and now there is no dsputs taking into consMeratton that by such into eidstence and the husband and |n one year, 1 am ofthe opinion that the prosecution in connedion with Criminal Sedton 498-A, 4S8-A04, 406, 406/34 Act pending 'm the Court of Judicial in exereise of powers under Sedfon 482 to|ality of the cireumstances and partioularty and other members cS the family that an |at between the partes, e applicafon is before ttie Judteial Magistrate First connectfon wth offences under Secfon & Section 4 <rf Dowry ProhMion Aet is Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge