IN HON’BLE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ILASPUR C.G. f 201 o 0 ashyap, S/o Late Shri Gangaram Kashyap, aged about 25 years, R/o Pendarwa, Police Station- Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) Kamla Bai, W/o Late Shri Gangaram Kashyap, aged about 46 years, R/o Pendarwa, Police Station-Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTZS :1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House. Office, P.S. Ratanpur, District— Bilaspur 2. Smt. Kiran Kashyap, W/o Naval Kashyap, aged about 23 years, R/o Akaltara, DistricteJanjgir-Champa (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 48 OF CR.P.C. B HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH‘ AT BHuAnPUR SB : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWHER“ CRM.P.N0.379/2010 APPLICANT Naval Kashyap 8r. Another RESPONDENTB‘ State of ChhalLisgarh 8n Another Shri Goutam Khcn‘apal, counsel for the applicants. Shri Neeraj Mehta, P.L. for th’é State/nonwapplicant No. 1. Shri Pmfull Bhargficounsel for~~non-applicant No.2. Applicants Naval Kashya'p 85 Kamla Bai and Complainant] non- applicant No.2 Smt; Kimn Kashyaprarc also pmsent in pcrson. They are idenfiiird by their respective counsel. PETITION UNDER 8ECTION 482 OF THE GREG. ORDER (07.07.2010) Pmsent petition has been m for quashing the criminal case NO. 671/09 pending befom the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kata, Disrict Bilaspur on the basis of FIR lodged by tho non~applicant No.2 vide Crime No. 350/09 mgistexed at police station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur for the oEence punishable under Section 498-A read with Seclion 34 of the IPC. 2. It is stated in the petition that the maniage of the non- applicant No.2] complainant was solemnized with the applicant NO. 1 on 20.5.2005 at village Pendalwa, Ratanpur. Accmding t the panics, n‘om the beginning, thexe used to be some dispute and misunderstanding between them and as unfortlmately the couple could not adjust, they started living sepamtely horn the year 2006. It has been further submitted that due to some misunderstanding between the parties, on 1.9.09; the complaint was made, by the complainant/non—applimnt No.2 making i allegation against the applicants for subjecting her to cruelty. It has been further submitted that subsequently. non-applicant No.2 and applicant No.1 had mutually agreed to live separately o and by the mutual conscnt, the divorce decree has already been passed on 105.2010. 3. Acconiing to the complainant, now she has realized that no useful pulpose would be sewed in pmsecuting the criminal case and it would be better to settle the dispute once for all. 4. Counsel fbr the non—applicant No.2 has also hled the amdavit of complainant/Smt. Kiran Kashyap stating themin that she has settled the matter outside the Court and is no more interested to prosecute the complaint case. 5. This Court put a specihc question to the complainant] non—applicant No.2 about the authenticity of the application and amdavit med by her to which, she? replied that she has compmmised the matter and she is no more interested to prosecute the applicants and to further go for litigation. She has stated that she could not live with the applicants and it would be better for her and the applicant No. 1 to live separately to have a better future. 6. In View of these circumstances and also in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of 3.3.Joshi & Others Vs. state of Hayaua and Another mported in (2008) 4 SCC 675, wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of mal' onial‘ disputes even if the oEence alleged is a non-compoundable one, the petition is allowed. FIR dated 1.9.09 regismned at police station Ratanpur vide Crime No. 350/09 and consequent to that Criminal Case NO. 671/09, pending before the Judirial' Magistrate Fixst Class, Kata for the oh‘ence punishabie under Section 498-A/ 34 is hereby‘quashed. A Sdl‘ ...i. \il‘ ?rit'mker Diwaker {A Judge i @