IngleSench IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OE CHHATTASGARH AT BILASPUR l^ Cr. M.P. N0. OF 2010 Apolicants A~. t 1. Anup Agrawal S/o Subhash Agrawal, Aged about 35 years 2. Mukesh Agrawal S/o Subhash Agrawal, age 32 years, t x A'^--'.'^^' 3' subhash Agrawal, S/o Shankarlal "'•••.:''"^ss^''~'''~ -., Agraweil, age 60 ^;&'\'\.?.-**<'' -*&*—'• ^•^I&^ 3^/" '>T>^^ 4. Smt. Nirmala Agrawal, W/o ....-•" ^W\^r Subhash Agrawal, Aged 58 years <> Respondents 5. Smt. Madhu Agrawal, W/o Rajki.unar Agrawal, Aged 46 years All are R/o Subhash Chowk, New Road, Raigarh, Distt- Raigarh (C.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S.-City , Kotwali, Distt.- Raigarh ( C.G.) Com.pl£dnant 2. Smt. Seema @ Shanti Agrawgd, W/o Anup Agrawal, age 27 years, C/o Shri Daryaram Agrawal, R/o Nahar Road, Vill. Barpali, Distt. Baj-garh (Orissa) 20F PE1?ITION UNDER SECTION 48S OF CODEOP CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR QUAS^NO THE FIR^FCRIME N0. 21/2016 JREGISTERED AT POLICE STATION KOTWALI RAIGARH ON THE BASIS OF COMPROMISE BETWEEN THEPARTIES "^ ^y ':^s'^^f^":if. ;^^. »a ^ HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. JusticePritinker Diwaker) Cr.M.P. N0.121 of 2010. Applicants RESPONDENT VERSUS Anup Agrawal and others. State of Chhattisgarh and another. Ms. Sharmila Singhai and Shri SanjayAgrawal counsel fbrtheapplicants. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan PLfor respondentNo.l/State. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava counsel for respondent No.2. Applicants Anup Agrawal, MukeshAgrawal, Subhash Agrawal, Smt. Nirmala Agrawal and Smt. Madhu Agrawal and the complainant namelySmt. Seemaalias Shanti Agrawal are also present in person. They are identified by their respective counsel. e PETITIONUNDERSECTION4820FTHECODEOFCRIMINAL -!-:~'-" PROCEDURE. ORDER (24.02.2010) Present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR which was ,s • ' ' ' . '. • " . '. registered on 13.1.2010 at Police Station — City Kotwali, District Raigaj'h vide CrimeNo. 21/2010 forthe offence punishable under Section498-A/341PC. 2. It is stated in the petition that marriage of respondent No.2/complajnant with applicant No.1 namely Anup Agrawal was solemnized on 25.11,2001 and outof their wedlock they were blessed with a son.It is alsostated that unfortunately as the couple cguld notadjust, theystarted livingseparately since 20.8.2008. Itis stated that due tosome misunderstanding between them, FIR dated 13.1.2010'waslodged by the complainant making allegation against the applicants for subjecting her to cruelty. Subsequently, the complainant has realized that no useful purpose would beserved in pursuing the said complaintand it would be better to settle the -2-- dispute once for all. This petition is dulysupported by the affidavitof the applicant No.1 -AnupAgrawal and thecomplainant/Fespondent No.2. In her affidavit the complainant has categorically stated that though she lodgedthe FIR dated 13.1.2010 due to some misunderstanding, there existed no major dispute between the partjes. She has further statedthat she has compromised the matter with the applicants and nowa decision has been taken to file an application for mutual divorce and that she would liveseparately and would not prosecute her report registered at Crime No. 21/2010and therefore the FIR dated 13.1.2010 lodged against the applicants may be quashed. Almost similar statement has been made by applicant No.1 namely Anup Agrawal. 3. This Court put a specific question to the complainant about the authenticity of the affidavit and the petition filed under Section482 Cr. P.C. to which she replied that she has filed the affidavit in support oMhe petition asthereare no chances for any compromise between the parties^ She has stated that she canhot live with the applicants and has fa^en a decision to divorceapplicant No.1 Anup Agrawal. 4. In these circumstances and alsoin the lightofthe decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of B.S. Joshi andothers v. State A : ' . of Harvana and another reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes even if the offence alleged is a non-compoundableone, the petition is allowed. FIR dated 13.1.2010 registered at Police Station - City Kotwali, District Raigarh vide Crime No. 21/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 498- A/34 IPC, is hereby quashed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge