IN_THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR ^ APPLICANTS Cr.M.P. No. .(?.0^°.../2011 (S.B.) 1) /'Girish Shivhare .^-\ k\v ..•-:^' ^-:'y ^"fe?€-"-; ^.^^^>^ ^-".^- 'v&:' ::^^^^ \^~ •^'IL**'. S/o Ram ^harose-Shivhare, Aged about 40 years R/o Near Suruchi Restaurant Manohar Chowk, Gondia Maharashtra COMPLAINANT -2) Smf Neelam Shivhare W/o Shri Girish Shivhare, Aged about 38 years R/o A-72, Karmchari Nagar, Shikola Bhatha, Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RgSPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana Durg (C.G.) PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR QUAS-H'MENT OF THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE JUWCIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS DURG IN CRIMIANL CASE N0. 961/19§9 FOR AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 498A QF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE ""I St^V Vt 1<-<1+ '(WF sn^T'SFRT3^ l^ w»mrwHra> 7^ •<||'1||<>1<|, ynl'y'iis, Riicii'Hy. ..to.Y^,b.'...<i^...;.%5%](r¥(230 affl^l '^^ (ijsl^i^Et) (wiw ^ftg aii^i SB : Hon'bie Shri Manindra Mohart C( 15-12.2011 Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counseli Shri Ashish Gupta, Panei Lawfc Learned counsei for the peti|t settled their disputes and amicaby parties to live peacefully without any| judgment^decree daied 9/7/07 pass^ Civii Judge, Senior Division, Qonaia| granted. During the iast three year4, and are no longer strained. The disputes has been taken, keeping in| 4n that view of the matter, aiiegations against petitioner No.| compounding-offehce was moved b^ rejected holding ihat the offences circumstances, the instant petition r|E Supreme Court in the case of B.S. otherg, AiR 2003 S.C. 1386. 'The petiiioner No.1 and 2, stated that they have resoived their) and their son and in these her ailegations against petitioner cnmlnai case may De orougnt to an 4n0 cireumsilances W-TS^ •f. ^fg '^TSVV. "t Shrivastava. J. rortne petltioners. Lawjyer for the State. » tioner submits that the oetitioners have now resotved in the iarger interest or both the 1 further disputes. He further submits that vide id in Hindu Marriage petition No.02/02 by the divorce in favour of petitioner No.1 has been \, relations between the parties have improved p^rties say that the decision to resolve aii the Iview the weifare of their son. Ipetitioner No.2 is not wiiiing to pursue her it is submitied that an appiication for )^fore the fearned trial Court but the same was |are not compoundabie. Therefore, in these been nied reiying upon the decision of the Uoshi and others v. State of Harvana and ttoth 1*0 are present in the Gourt and they have disputes in the iargest interest of their famiiy petitioner No.2 is not wiiling to pursue >.1 and a prayer has been made that the •tiwCw i8s{l<i iiiuiirfir, -FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. j ''?* "•X ^ -t *ii*(cir g»*(ra» 'S^ ^WW<i, WT^WW, WvfVWf-f. ..<1<?.^A^.,..?^?..;..1^.1Z."200 3ii^i'<ra?i' ( ICII^'SI<(T) SS^V Ti ItS-li'* '?w sn^?T sti*<i4> Deepii TOIIW ^i?g'sii^i —a- ?" Taking into consideration of the case as ateo juagment (supra) and orders passed by thi StateofOrtiattisgarh, CrMP Nj State 8f'Chhattisgarh and anc bealloweci. Aoco^jngly, this petitior^ pending.in^the Court of Judicial v. Girish Shivhafe) is hereby qi^ashed charges. ^pIlfwN IfWvS V fS^ tlal^il iT3(fin 3(1^1 |the submission of ihe parties and circumstances of the Supreme Court in the case of B.SJoshi ^ Court in the case of Sandip Kumar and ors. v. b.684/10 and Shatruhan Barman aridothers v. rther, CrMP No.367/11, this petition deserved to is aiiowed and the criminai case No.961/99, Magistrate, 1 Ciass, Durg (State of ChhaWsgarh lashed and the petitioner No.1 is acquitted ofthe - Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge