Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 305 (CHH)

SANJAY SHURKAR v. STATE OF C. G.

2005-09-07

DHLRENDRA MISHRA

body2005
ORDER 1. The petitioners have preferred this application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity 'the Code') for quashing of criminal case No. 476/2002 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg for the offences punishable u/s 498-A of the IPC on the ground that respondent No.2 complainant who is wife of petitioner No.1 has settled their mutual disputes and has arrived to a compromise and in view of such settlement, the respondent No.2/complainant does not intend to prosecute the criminal case any further. 2. Earlier an application u/s 320 of the Code was filed by the complainant and the accused persons before the trial Court vide document of Annexure.P/-6 However, the learned trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the same vide order dated 29-01.2005 of Annexure P/1 on the ground that offence u/s 498-A of the IPC and u/s 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act ate not compoundable u/s 320 of the Code and the same could be quashed only u/s 482 of the Code by the High Court Because of the above order-the present application has been filed by the accused persons arraying the complainant/wife as respondent No.2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant had also filed an application u/s 125 of the Code for maintenance and as a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been paid by the petitioner No.1/husband to the complainant/wife through draft towards permanent alimony, the application u/s 125 of the Code has been dismissed as withdrawn by the complainant/wife vide order dated 27-09-2002 of Annexure P/4 He further submits that the complainant and petitioner No.1have preferred joint petition for divorce through mutual consent u/s 13(8) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the same is pending before the learned VIIth Additional District Judge (F.T.C) Durg and therefore in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the criminal case pending against the petitioners at the instance of respondent No.2/complainant should be quashed in order to facilitate the party to settle their disputes and begin their life afresh. teamed counsel for the petitioners places his reliance upon the judgment in the matter of B.S Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another in support of his contention. 4. Learned counsel for, respondent No.2 does not dispute the above factual position. 5. teamed counsel for the petitioners places his reliance upon the judgment in the matter of B.S Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another in support of his contention. 4. Learned counsel for, respondent No.2 does not dispute the above factual position. 5. The petitioner No. and respondent No.2 are present in person and on being asked they admit that they have settled all their standing dispute amicably and there is no dispute pending between them in any Court of law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Taking into consideration that the complainant and the accused Persons have settled their matrimonial disputes amicably and no dispute is now pending m any Court of law between them and further considering that they have also decided to annul the opinion the marriage by a decree of divorce through mutual consent, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if the prosecution in connection with criminal case No.476/2002 u/s 498-A pending in the Court of JMFC Durg is quashed in the exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of JMFC, Durg against the petitioner in connection with criminal case No.476/02 is quashed. Application Allowed.