BHUPENDER SINGH Vs. JASPRIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed for quashing the criminal case No.5 75/ 2007 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent No. 1 vide Crime No. 23/2007 registered at Manila Police Station, Durg.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that the marriage of the non-applicant No. 1 / compiainant with applicant No. 1 namely Bhupender Singh was solemnized on 29.11.2006 at Bhilai. According to the parties, from the beginning there used to be some dispute and misunderstanding between them and as unfortunately the couple could not adjust, they started living separately after 9.5.2007. It has been further submitted that due to some misunderstanding between the parties, on 23.6.2007 a written complaint was lodged by the complainant making allegation against all the applicants for subjecting her to cruelty. It has been further submitted by the parties that subsequently, the non-applicant No. 1 and the applicant No. 1 have mutually agreed to live separately and by the mutual consent, a divorce decree has already been passed on 18.11.2009 vide Ex.P-4. Furthermore, on 24.4.2009 vide Annexure P-3, in the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, proceedings have also been finalized between the husband and the wife where the lump sum amount of Rs.3,25,000/- has been agreed to be given by the applicant No. 1 to his wife. According to the complainant, subsequently she has realized that no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the criminal case and it would be better to settle the dispute once for all. Counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 has also filed joint applications for quashing the FIR and also for the quashment of the criminal case No. 575/2007 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg. Joint applications filed today, before the Court has been duly supported by the affidavit of all the accused persons and also the affidavit of the complainant/non-applicant No. 1. Non-applicant No. 1 / complainant has stated that she has no objection if the criminal proceedings are quashed against the applicants despite it was initiated on the basis of her complaint.

(3.) This Court put a specific question to the complainant/non-applicant No. 1 about the authenticity of the application and affidavit jointly filed by her and the application dated 9.4.2010 to which she replied that she has compromised the matter, she is no more interested to prosecute the applicant No. 1 and to further go for litigation. She states that she cannot live with the applicants and it would be better for her and the applicant No. 1 to live separately to have a better future.