Advocates:
['RAHUL TAMASKAR', '', 'AKASH GUMBER', 'A G', '', 'Tridib Bhattacharya', 'PRATEEK SHARMA', 'SUNITA JAIN', 'PRAGYA PANDEY']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRMP No. 1437 of 2016

• Shruti Nanda W/o Sankalp Nanda, Aged About 24 Years R/o Adarsh

Colony Near Sindhi Gurudwara, Police Station City Kotwali, District

Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Sankalp Nanda S/o Shri V. K. Nanda, Aged About 24 Years R/o 80 - 83

Maitri Vihar Colony, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

2. V. K. Nanda, S/o Shri B. L. Nanda, Aged About 62 Years R/o 80-83

Maitri Vihar Colony District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

3. Anita Nanda, W/o V. K. Nanda, Aged About 54 Years R/o 80-83 Maitri

Vihar Colony District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

4. Utkarsh Nanda, S/o V. K. Nanda, Aged About 29 Years R/o 80-83

Maitri Vihar Colony District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

5. State Of Chhattisgarh Police Station City Kotwali, District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh

---- Respondents

For Petitioner:

Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate

For Respondents No. 1 to 4

Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate

For State:

Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order on Board

02.02.2017

1. The present petition has been preferred by the complainant under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking for quashment of the F.I.R which

has been registered at the behest of complainant herself against

Respondents No. 1 to 4, who are the husband and in-laws of the

Petitioner.

2. The Petitioner is present before the Court today and on a query being

2

put she makes a categorical submission that they have entered into a

compromise/settlement and have amicably settled the dispute. By

virtue of said compromise/settlement arrived at between them she

does not intend to prosecute the Respondents any further and wants

the criminal proceeding to be closed once and for all. Respondent No.1

– husband of the Petitioner is also present in the Court along with

Respondent No.2, his father.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that he has specific

instructions in this regard and therefore this Cr.M.P. has been moved

by the complainant herself seeking for quashment of the criminal

proceeding initiated at her behest.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the F.I.R. was

lodged by the Petitioner as early as on 31.10.2014 but by virtue of the

settlement / compromise entered into between them charge sheet has

not been filed. Rather the Police Authorities have submitted a closure

report before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur which is

pending consideration.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitoiner submits that since before institution

of the complaint case the matter has been resolved he prays for the

quashment of the entire proceeding by this Court exercising powers

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

6. Learned State Counsel at this juncture submits that since the

complainant herself is present before the Court and makes statement

that she does not intend to pursue the criminal case any further, the

State have no objection if the entire criminal proceeding in the light of

the compromise is closed at this juncture.

3

7. In view of the statement made by the Petitioner and Respondents No.

1 and 2 present in person before this Court also taking into

consideration the observation made by the Supreme Court in case of

B. S. Joshi & others v. State of Haryana & Another [2003 (4) SCC

675] and Narinder Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Another

[2014 (6) SCC 466] this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose

would be served if the Respondents are prosecuted any further.

8. In the light of the above, the present Petition deserves to be and is

allowed.

9. Accordingly, Respondents No. 1 to 4 are acquitted from the charges

leveled against them under Section 498A, 34 IPC and FIR of Crime

No. 254/2014 registered at City Kotwali, Bilaspur stands quashed.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy)

JUDGE

kishore