IN THE HON'BLE H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bei Cr.M.P.NO. h1LVI /2011 ftfi i^: PETITIONERS P.R.tk)..........^'.PJ............., PtBsssteS byShri ..^JC^'y^cW) (?3|sd.......^ArM^.,^,,^; 1. Puran Lal Patel, S/o Jhaduram Patel, aged about 40 years, 2. Har Bai w/o Ayodhya Patel, aged about 45 years, 3. Hem Kunwar wd/o Jhaduram Patel, aged about 68 years. All R/o Pali, Police Station Naila, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDNETS :- l State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magista-ate, Korba, District Korba (CG) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). 3. Sunita Patel W/o Puran Lal Patel, aged about 33 years, R/o Dharampur, Gevra Basti, Police Station Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482_CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 3)1^1 ^I [silt 'tTSff 3eiI^?T^l TWHCfTsNI<h ^SET "41'i)ld'4, ^-AwiS, [~^v\wy. ...<^:..&£.^;:.i.l^^ Wf 200 Sn^'T'q^TC'rt^?) fSB ! Hon'ble Shri Maaindrfa 14.11.2011 Shri A.P. Sharaia, cozuti Shri Sudhir Bajpai, Heard on adiuission. This petition has bee|i quashing of the crimmal pro| upon registration of oifenc^ under Crime No. 189/07, also order dated 12th Augij No. 29/09, by which order has been aiErmed. Leamed counsel for t No.3 lodged report in fhe aUeging fhat she was subje< husband in. connection with out of tfae matrim.onial hous for divorce. On fhat report, cbllfa^-i 'WTCff ii fe3> ti^K ^'aifiiHsii^r Mohan Shrivastava, J.l sel for fhe petitioners. Govt. Advocate for fhe State. n filed by the petitioners praying for ^eediags pending against the petitioners by police of Police Station- Katghora iding to Criminal Case No. 1228/07, as st 2010 passed in Cmnmal Revision 7.3.2009 passed by the Magistrate lebdin; dfeted jie petitioners argued fhat respondent ^olice station at Katghora on 5.6.2007 |ted to cruelty and harassment by her tlemand of dowrv and she was shunted and she is being compelled to accept (pffence under Section 498-A of fhe IPC was registered against petitiofier- Pooran Lal. In fhat case, fhe poUce investigated the niatter and a| charge sheet has also been iUed in the Court of competent jurisdic^ion. Later on, anofher FIR has been ---~-_ '•"XI-HC—78 sn^r w ft-ii* '(T?fT Sf^ sih^ich "-3(. 'S^ "41-41d^l, ^fll^f'Ko, fsi<iiyy,< WfPtl <hH)<* •^200 sn^i •v^; C^y^fi) ^ira? ^fcf 3ii^?i 2- lodged by respondent No.$ 12.8.2008, again makin? cruelty and also giving refeji report made on 5.6.2007 ,l|i counsel for fhe petitioner would show fhat ui substanc^ and fhe same aad therefore,| act of commission of ofient petitioners could be tried un( different Coiirts ia respect ol offence under Section 498-A d in the police station- Janjgrr on ^imilar allegation of barassinent and rence to earUer case regisfered upon ifore another poUce station. Learned u^ged that fhe contents of the two FIR fhe allegation ofthe two cases are one two criminal cases, arisiag out of one [3e, could not be registered nor the (ler two dtfferent cruuinal cases in two one siagle act aUeguig commission of otfftieIPC. On fhe ofher hand, fhe averment made in the tvd lodged on 5.6.2007 aUeginj respondent No.3, but, later 01 disputes and were Uvrag togi have taken place on 23.7.20C further submits that prayer fhat subsequently, anothe) misconceived ua law and is no I have gone fhrough fhe| 1st FIR relates to some ofhdr *wf<-i<i1-f -WMf if fstzt tfSre5R ^r attgi) 3ii^?i leatned counsel for fhe State, referring to o FIR, submitted that the lat FIR was certain harassinent meted out to i, when the parties had reconciled their ither, another incident was aUeged to i8, which led to lodging of 2nd PIR. He br quashiag of 1st FIR on the ground FIR has been lodged, itself is tenable. FIR in two cases. On fhe face of it, fhe incident, wbich is of date prior to XI-HC—7S gizf •qiqr<«Tq, eiTn.tpre, iciiniyy TrpTwam^ 311^1 '^1 K;')i'*> WT STI^T skMI<* PraveeA. ^ Sf^l ^f^K (.'^lty^fl') T TOiiw^tersii^T 5- 5.6.2007. The 2nd FIR h^s been lodged by respondent No.3 subsequenfly aUeging tfaa' 23.7.2008. IntbatFIR, itha was lodged relating to anoti between the parties, she ha4 started Uving with her husband. In fhe opuuon of this Court, fhe ^cts constituting aUeged commission of offence under Seetion 498-A alleged to have constituted o| lodged on 5.6.2007. In thes^ any case for quashing 1st FIH Though leamed couas| cases may be tried tDgether ^•<ri?i^l ftW^l ^ fe^ <i^r^rt 'iTsffiliTan^r she was subjected to cruelty oa i been stated fhat- fhough earlier an FIR ler uicident, as the dispute was settled and 323 read with Section 34 ofthe 1PC in the subsequent FIR, ar^ entirely different from fhat wlrich is |ffence under trial pursuant to the 18t FIR circumstances, I am not convinced that is made out at fhis stage. i^l for fhe petitioner sought to urge that in fhe peculiar facts and ci(-cumstance of fhe two cases, fhese two by one Coizrt and the suitable order iu ftta.t ia not the scope of consideration of that regard may be passed, this petition. The petitioners shaU |be at Uberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be availabjle to him under the law in case the petitioners makes out any c^.se ofjoint trial of the two cases before one and fhe same Cotirt. With the aforesaid obs of. srvations, the petition is finaUy disposed Sd7- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava B Judge