'— Slr'.gl®Bench iss IN THE HQN-BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH_AT BILASPUR fC.e.) CR.M.P. N0-5^ °/2010 ^l H 'l^l PETETEONER fComDlainant) (Accused persons) o ^:f" ^:^.::%- <. ^"~ ^...••" ~ u^^". • I*' . 1 •'. ^' RESPONDENT 1. Smt. Vibha Shukla wife of &ilip Kumar Shukla, aged 28 years, R/o. 39/B, Housing Board Colony, North Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.6.) Ramavtar Shukla, Son of Ramkar Shukla, aged about 54 years, •^. Smt. Kaxmi Devi wife of Ramavtar Shukla, aged about 50 years, Anit Kumar Shukla son of Ramavtar Shukla,aged abpyt 25 years, Ku. Rekha Shukla, D/o. Ramavtar Shukla, aged about 24 years, Dilip Kumar Son of Ramavtar Shukla, aged about33 years, (No. 2 to 6 R/o. Subhashnagar, P.S. Kotwali, District Durg (C.6.). Sujit Kumar Son of Ramavtar Shukla, aged about 30 years, R/o. P.S. Salhebhata, t>istt. Rcynandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS State pf Chhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Chakradhgr Nagar, Raiggrh (C.S.). ?') 6S.; ^-si! '<! PETTTION UN&ER SECTEON 48'2 OF CRIAttNAL PROCE6URE CO&E PETmONEf '] Sh- AJ BILASPUR •inols Bench ; Honbis %r. Justicg Pritinkgr &iwoker 590 of . r . <'nit. VlbhsG ^huk^ A o'"h^r'^. :t ^^ '. - 1^ IVJ ^ -^ th State of Chhatrisaarh Shrl Vishnu Koshtha, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Pankai Sirivastova. PL *or the State/resoondsnt. 'itioners Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 ars ajso present 'n person. i hey are icientitled by 'heir' counsel. In "sspect of Detitioners No. 3 cnd 5. the medical certifjcate has bee" filed seskina their exemotion. PETITION UN&eR SECTION 482 OF THE OF .^STi^T^I ^^^.mj.^^ ah.f^ ^ . <* !("FM iiSF 'lm :Sv"T,.fl'S'~S%f. . (16.0-%20103 Present petitlon hcs bsen fi!ed for quashing the crl'nir'c! case No. 384/2008 pending before the Judicia! Magistrate. First Cio.ss, Raigarh OR the basls of F.I.R. lodQed by petitionsr No. 1 vide Cri.Tie Nc. 193/2001 registe"e,d at pc.iice. ststion ChskradhG" Naaar. ftaiaarh. 2. It is stated in fhe cetitiQR that the marrisae of the petitione" No. l/cornp'air'ant was so'emnized wjth the Dstitionsr No. .5 DS"D KiJpicr Shuksa on 10.7.2000 at Rcioarh. According to the parties, f"om thg bsginning there Lised to be some dispute and m!sunders+ar'dinQ bstwse" them and as unfortunately the coupls couid not adjuot, they started jlving separately after about 2 f months of ths iriorriage. It has bssn Turther subniittsci thct due to ^o^n's !Tiisund^rstQ-yidiinQ between the' parties, on 6.11.2001 o. written complaint 'A'O.S lodged by the petitioner No. 'l/compiainant making aijegations •"6<». f^1\ 1 ^! 1 '^ ^,,--" £i against the pe+itioners No. 2 to 7 for subjectir'g he" to cruelty. According to ths compSainant subsequentiy she has reaiized that rso usefui purpose wouid be served 'n pro-secutina the crimina! co.se and it wouid be bette" to settls the dispute once for a!l. Zt has been further submitted by the pan'ies that subsequently, ths petitioner No. 1 ond the pe-itioner No. 6 have mutualiy aar'eed to iive separately and to this effect Q diyorce petition has already bsen filed on 12.3.2010 seeking divorce. Further ths pcrj'ies haye decided to compromise the case pertaining to application under Section 125 of th.e Code of Crimina! Procedure GS filed by petitioner No. l/complai"ant, it has been pointed out tho.t the pstit.ion.er No. 6 has aiready given Rs.2 iakhs to the petitioner No. 1 towards sett'ement. 3. This Court put a specific question to the compiainant/petitioner No. 1 about the authenticity of th.e present petition fiied on 2.8.2010 to which she repiisd that she has compromised the matter, she is no more intsrested to prosecute the petitioners No. 2 to 7 and to further go for litigation. She states tho.t she cannot live with the petitioner No. 6 and his other fomiiy members and it wouid be better for her and the petitioner No. 6 to live separately to have a better future. 4. In these circumstances and dso in ths light of the decision of the SuDreme Court in the matter of B.S. Jsshi !ng ana _anothsr reported in 4 SCC 675 wherein it ho.s been held tho.t it is the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settiement-s of matrimonia! disputes even if the offence aiieged is a non-compoundabie one, the petition is aliowed. FIR dated 6.11.2001 rsgistered at ^jj.iife.I.i.^ mm& 3 •%, S-SiKd'- ^f' '-*^^3E@ poiice station Chakradhar Nagar, District Rasgo.rh vide Crime No. 193/2001 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh for the offence punishable under Section 498-,A of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge