•y 1» ItnsleBenfti BEFORE THE HON»BLEHIGHCOURT OF CHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR Cr. M. P.NO. ^^ 1 / 2009 PETITIQNERS •^" 4, i-; ......(£t%?- ^^<>.:%^1 ^u- ^.....- ^3'«v,< ^•-•'" y ^^ RESPONDENTS 1. J. Ritesh Naidu, S/o Shri Bajrang Naidu, aged about 28 years. 2. J. Bajrang Naidu, S/o G. Venkat Rao Naidu, (wrongly mentioned as baiktshat) aged about 67 years, 3. Mrs. J. Saubha^a Laxmt, W/o Shri Bajrang Naidu, aged about 56 years. All R/o A-8, Mitan Vihar, Near Sonali Nursery, Daldal Seoni Road, Raipur VERSUS 1. 2. (- State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Disfrict Raipur (C.G.) J. Vaishali Naidu, wife of J. Ritesh Naidu, R/o 82, M.I.G, R.P. Nagar, Phase 2, Korba PETITION UNDER Section "OF THB CmMlNAL PROCEDURE CODE^ 1973 ^5W| T«|<410<4,t?-alt1<l<?, ROI^I^ •••••••••B<aB(lBNBBn« •'••••••• |r«BB»^Tii• 3H^9T traq»(^cli^c|<£{) ^200 OT^^T^rR^icb ^CT3TT^^Tw+licp ?^<1TW ^rf^cT 3TI^^T S.B: HON'BLE JUSTiCtE MR. PRITiNKER DIWAKER 18-02-2019: Mr. Manish Sh^ Mr. Rajendra T( Mr. Sumit ^ No. 2/complainant. Petitioners - J.| Saubhagya Laxmi Shri Manlsh Sharma, Respondent N4. person andshetoo is Present petitior|i Criminai Procedure No.574/2006 pendini Class, Korba. Heard on l.A. Section 320(2) Cr.P.( under Section 320( permission to compoi|nd The aforesaid the affidavits of the amicably compromis^ any fear or pressure have any dispute stated before this Co|jrt €pl<4[cO<Tl»1+11<1«V(ffc^l^RlK^IX ^3Tf^T3TI^5T •ma, counsel forthe petitioners. pathi, PL for the State/respondent No. 1. ingh, counsel for the respondent (Ritesh Naidu, J. Bajrang Naidu & Mrs. J. pr^sent in person and they are identlfied by ^dvocate. 2 - J. Vaishaji Naidu is aiso present in lidentifled by Shri Sumit Slngh, Advocate. filed under Section 482 of the Code of is for quashment of Crimlna! Case before the Judlciai Magistrate, First lo. 01 which is an application fiied under ^. and I.A. No. 02 which is an appiication 1(|2)(5) of the Cr.P.C., respectively for the offences. |ipplications have been duly supported by )arties. !t is stated that the parties have |d the dispute outside the court without 1'rom anyone and henceforth they wiil not bet^een them. Compiainant has categoricaiiy that as she has already taken dlvorce C-78 '!3v^ 'r<AWW^, W\W{fo, Rrtl^-l^ TFraff^^TT^ 3TT^?T q?q? (^cli^d^) ^20 sTT^^T^rR^icb ?CT3TR5Tfl?+ticr> \>- g^TTW ^rf^T 3TT^5T -2L- from petitloner No. 1, sh<| present case and wants to| !n thls view of the| above are ailowed and th^ is permitted to be entered The result of this the petitioners of the 498-A ofthe indian Penai < is not interested to prosecute the Istart a new llfe. matter, the appiications mentioned compromise deslred by the partles No. c^mpromise would be the acquittai of ^ffence' punishable under Sectton pode. Ordered accordingiy. ^. ___-- \ Sd/- pritiBkerD^*"" cpi<<Ic^<nvi +ii^Qk'^"(^^cl <<f^i^ci^ ^? 3lRl^ 3TT^^T