High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRMP/914/2017allowed

Rameshwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-08-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.M.P. No.914 of 2017

1. Rameshwar S/o Santram Jaiswal, Aged About 27 Years R/o Devsagar, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

2. Santram S/o Khubu Jaiswal, Aged About 60 Years R/o Devsagar, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

3. Rathbai W/o Santram Jaiswal, Aged About 58 Years R/o Devsagar, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

4. Bhagwat S/o Santram Jaiswal, Aged About 25 Years R/o Devsagar, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

2. Shailendri Bai W/o Rameshwar, Aged About 26 Years R/o Devsagar, Police Station Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For the Petitioner : Shri T. K. Jha, Advocate.

For the State/respondent : Shri Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board 16.08.2017 Heard.

Admit.

1. Statement of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had been recorded by Registry of this Court. Respondent No.2, who is wife of petitioner No.1, has stated on oath, that she, her husband and in-laws have compromised and solved their disputes amicably and also stated that she is happily residing with her husband and in-laws, hence, she is willing to withdraw the criminal cases against the petitioners.

2. Criminal Case No.161 of 2013 is pending before the Court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bhatgoan, District- Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (C.G), against the petitioners which was initiated and proceeded at the instance of respondent No.2. An application for compromise under Sections 320(1) and 320(2) of Cr.P.C. has been presented before the Trial Court, but the same has been dismissed as the offences under Section 498 A/34 of Indian Penal Code is not compoundable.

3. Considering the case that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably resolved by the parties and the complainant/respondent No.2 is happily residing with her husband and in-laws, continuation of the criminal case shall disrupt this compromise and affect the relationship between the parties.

4. Looking to these reasons and in view of the observations made and directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this is fit case for exercising of inherent jurisdiction by this Court.

5. Hence, this petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner pending before the Court of JMFC, Bhatgoan, DistrictBaloda Bazar, Bhatapara,(C.G), in Cr. Case No. 161 of 2013 are hereby quashed.

6. This petition stands dispossed off.

Sd /- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Jamal