StnflteBeReh IN THE HIGH COUKT OF CHHATTISGA ATBIIASFUR ^(CHHATTISGARH) Cr. M. P. Na;-L&i 12ffn. S.B; PETITIONERS: - •-iK^^^^" .^"""w;^-.-,,,,, 1. Arvind Vij, Age-50- Years S/o Late Shri NarendraSinghVij, 2. Kawaljeet Smgh Vi],Age-45 Years S/o fcate Shri Narendra Singh Vij , Both are R/0 - Vaitehali-Nagar, Bhilai, Lucky Cycle Store, Iridira Chowk, Ramnagar, Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) -:'VERSUS:- RESPONDENT: - 1. STATE;OFCHHAT:'TISGARH. "Wi. Through:- P.S.Tarbahar, BilasRur, Disft.- Bilaspur <C.G.) 2. • Smt. Manmeet Vij Kour, Age-43 Years. 'W/O Slu-iArvind Singh.Vij, ; ^ BA3 - VaUshali-Nagar, Bhilai, . . Lucky, Cyele Store, Iridira ^Chowk, Ramnagar, Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) -:APPLICATIONUNDERSECTION:-4820FT(ffi CRIMINALPRQC^lIRECOI^FORQBASffl'&^THE IMPUGNED-ORDERDTD. 18/05/2011 PASSEDIN CRIMINAL CASKNO.:-I46/2010:i::' . • c^^^ "^ HIGH COTJRT OFCHHATnS<iARH ; BUASPUR S.B. : HON*BLESHRI MAMNDRA MOHANSimiW^TA^.J. Cr.M.P. No.629/2011 PETmONERS RESPONDENTS Versus Arvind Vij and another State of Chhattisgarh and ariofher (PeUtIon u/S 482 ofthe Cr.P.C) Appearance: Mr. J.A. Lohanl, couasel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.l. - Mr. S. A. Ansari, counsel for respondent No.3. Petitioner No.l- Arvind Vi], petitioner No.2- Kawaljeet Sin^i Vij and respondent No.2- Smt. Manmeet-Wj Kour are also present tn person. :<fe ORAL- ORDEai (Passedon 17.10.2011) At the request ofleamed counsel for the parties, the matter is heard fmally. '• 2. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that though respondent No.2, in fhe year 2000, had lodged the report alle@ng comimssion of offence under Section 498-A of the IPC against the petitioners, in course of tlme, In fhe Isaysr interest -2- of their famUy life and chUdren; the petitioner No.l/husband aad respondent No.2/wife have resolved all their disputes and now they have started Uvir^ together leadmg to tiappy married Ufe. - 3. Petltioner No.l and respondent No.2, who are present in the Court, have clearly stated that fhey have resolved all fheir disputes amicably, difierences have come to an end and fhey are living together happily wifh fheir children. Respondent No.2-wife stated that she does not want to proceed on the complaiat lodged by her in fhe year 2000, as she is now living happily wi(h her husband-petitioner No. 1 and children. ~ 4. It is further joinfly submitted fhat in this cTaangeb circumstances, an appllcation was filed before fhe Coiirt below • - for bringing fhe criminal case to an end, however, fhe - application has been rejected by the leamed Court below holding fhat fhe offence is not compoundable one and, 'therefore, fhe parties have now approached before this Court by ~ -ffling fhls petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for - quashing cruuuial proceedings, relying upon fhe judgment of fhe Supreme Court in fhe case of B.8. JosU and others Vs. State of Harvana aad anoCher1 as also the orders passed by fhis Cozu-t m the cases of Saadip Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of C.G.2 aud Paras Dahariya andauother Vs. State ofC.G. aiid aaother3 t AIR 2003 SC 1386 2 Cr.M.P. No.684/10 decided on 1.10.2010 - ' Cr.M.P. No.810/10 decided on 22.11.2010 'ief' "isassS^ -3- 5. Takuig into consideration fhe totalily offhe cucumstances, fhe submissions made by leamed counsel for the partles as also that the husband/petitioner No.l and fhe wlfe/respondent No.2 have resolved all (heir disputes and fhat fhere is happy-re- union in the larger interest of fam.Uy and children and Ctuit respondent No.2-wife has clearfy stated before this Court that she has resolved her disputes, whicdi'is not under any fhreat, coercion or any misrepresentations, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in fhe case of B.S. Joshl (supra) and orders passed by fhis CoTjrt in fhe case of Sandip Kumaa" (supra) and Paras Daliariya (supra), in the opinion Df-thls Coiut, present is a fit case where the crmunal yroceedings iiiitiated at fhe instance of respondent No.2-wife aQsffng • commission of ofiTence under Section 498-A of the IPC should • be quashed as (he parties have been living together and resolved all fheir disputes. 6. Accordir^ly, fhe petltion is allowed. The criminal proceedmgs in » Crmmial Case No. 146/10 and aU other connected proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, BUaspur are hereby quashed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava I^aareen