IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAHISGARH AT BILASPUR (^- CR.M.P.NO OF2010 Single Beneh IN THE MAHER OF: PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED PERSONS 1. ^ ,\~,p.,.^';" ^- '^ir'CS.'''' ,y .^ .-•".-"' f^yr . y .••"' t~':" ..y / ^p' .^'y..-'"r^^^ ^••'".^ ..-••'' { ^'^ ".^' 3. VERSUS RESPONDENT Gopi Chand Ahuja, S/o Late Shri Uttam Chand Ahuja, Aged about 52 years, R/o Near Jhulelal Mandir, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Jyoti Bai Ahuja, W/o Shri Gopi Chand Ahuja, Aged about 50 years, R/o Near Jhulelal Mandir, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Jay Kumar Ahuja, S/o Shri Gopi Chand Ahuja, Aged about 27 years, R/o Near Jhulelal Mandir, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Ram Chandra Ahuja, S/o Shri Gopi Chand Ahuja, Aged about 25 years, R/o Near Jhulelal Mandir, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 1. 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Incharge, Mahila Police Station,Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh Smt. Reena Ahuja, W/o Shri Jay Kumar Ahuja, D/o Shri Raj kumar Khilnani, R/o Kelkar Para, Raipur, Chhattisgarh PETITION UNDERSECTION 482 ofTHE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT 1; i'l (i isa-rf 1 ^t*& t ^'iS&^ "y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shriyastaya, Petitioners Criminal Misc. Petition N0.809/2010 Gopi Chand Ahuja and Others Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and Another (Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Present: - Shri Ankit Singhal, counsel for the Petitioners, Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.1. Shri Devershi Thakur, counsel for respondent No.2. Petitioner No.l-Gopi Chand Ahuja, Petitioner No.2-Smt. Jyoti Bai Ahuja, Petitioner No.3-Jai Kumar Ahuja, Petitioner No.4-Ram Chandra Ahuja and Respondent No.2-Smt. Reena Ahuja are also present in person before the Court today. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 01-12-; Heard. (2) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that he has filed reply on behalf of respondent No.2. (3) The reply is taken on record. (4) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are facin< prosecution for commission of offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. on the complaint made by the respondent No.2, who is the wife of petitioner No.S-Jai Kumar Ahuja. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that whatever disputes remaining between the parties partjcuiariy between the petitioner No.S-husband and respondent No.2-wife has been settled and amicably resolved without any threat or coercion from any side. He submits that due to difference in opinion and matrimoniaj discord, it is impossible for the petitioner No.3 and respondent No.2 to continue their marital vyy "^^ ^ /^ 2_ 9 relations. He further submits that in the larger interest of both the parties and their future as also their family with the advice of well wishers, family members and relatives, they have decided to bring their entire dispute to an end and thsy have also decided to obtain a decree of divorce by mutua! consent by submitting appropriate petition in that behalf. Leamed counsel further argued that as a gesture of goodwill, the petitioner No.3-husband has agreed for payment of sufficient amount of maintenance to the respondent No.2-wife as one time measure in the sum of Rs.5 Lakh, to which, respondent No.2 has a!so agreed. In this regard, the parties have executed a deed of setttement on 07- 10-2010. (5) Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also submits that in the circumstances, the respondent No.2 has also entered into an amicabte settlement with the petitioner No.S-husband and the parties have decided to put to an end to all their disputes and they have also declded to obtain a decree of divorce by mutual consent and steps have also been taken in that regard. (6) The petitioners No.1 to 4 and the respondent No.2, who are present in the Court, have clearly stated that they have entered into an amicable settlement and brought to an end to all their disputes in the larger interest of the petitioner No.3 and the respondent No.2 and their family members without any threat, coercion or pressure from any side. (7) Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the facts and circumstances of the case and the reply filed by the respondent No.2 as ateo taking into consideration the statement made by the parties before this Court today, who are present in person, in the opinion of this Court, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 8. S. Joshi and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1386 as also the order dated 06-05-2010 passed by this Court in the case of Rajendrs BiBB -3. Tumane Patel & Others vs. State of Chhatt/sgarh & Another ^Cr.M.P.No.307 of 2010^, a case for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner on the report of respondent No.2 is made out. 6. Accordingly, the petition (Cr.M.P.No.809/2010) is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings under the F.I.R. registered as Crime Number 27 of 2010 lodged at Mahila Potice Station, Raipur are hereby quashed. Sd/- Manindra Mohaii Shrivastava Judge