1 / 2 2025:CGHC:888 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 845 of 2024 1 - Megha Chandrakar D/o Devnandan Chandrakar Aged About 29 Years R/o 20/A, Street 32, Sector 4, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Shalabh Kashyap S/o Narsingh Aged About 33 Years R/o Plot No. 32, Road No. 8, Pragati Nagar, Rasali, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 07/01/2025 1. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 28/05/2024 passed in Criminal Case No.1143/2021 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. This Court by order dated 11/11/2024 directed the parties to appear before the Mediation Committee on 09th of December, 2024 and it was also directed to submit the mediation report before the Court after conclusion of the mediation proceedings. 3. Thereafter, pursuant to the order passed by this Court the parties appeared before the mediation center and they have settled their dispute ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.07 17:31:48 +0530 2 / 2 amicably before the mediation center. The mediation report has been submitted before this Court and in the mediation both the parties entered into an agreement/compromise, wherein it was agreed that the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Twelve Lakhs Rupees) to the petitioner through a demand draft within a period of two months and shall also return the jewelries and other articles. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that she undertakes on behalf of non-applicant Shalabh Kashyap that as per the settlement, the non-applicant will pay the amount of Rs.12.00 Lakhs to the applicant/wife Megha Chandrakar through the Demand Draft and will follow the conditions as per the settlement by and between the parties arrived at in the mediation center. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has not opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and he do not want to press this revision. 6. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the instant revision stands disposed of. However, the applicant shall be at liberty to approach before this Court if the grievance of the applicant is not redressed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu