1 2025:CGHC:7852 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 556 of 2025 1 - Abhishek Sharma S/o Shri Parmanand Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o 340 Fci Colony Vijay Chowk, Changrobhata (Changorabhata) P.S D.D. Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Parmanand Sharma S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad Sharma Aged About 61 Years R/o 340 Fci Colony Vijay Chowk, Changrobhata (Changorabhata) P.S D.D. Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Indrani Sharma W/o Shri Parmanand Sharma Aged About 52 Years R/o 340 Fci Colony Vijay Chowk, Changrobhata (Changorabhata) P.S D.D. Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Smt. Ojaswani Sharma W/o Shri Ajay Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Behind Ram Mandir Street, Janhit Chowk Kota, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicants) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Soumya Sharma W/o Shri Abhishek Sharma Aged About 30 Years R/o Plot No. 459 Milenium Chowk, Sundar Nagar Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Applicant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13/02/2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of 2 BNSS Act, 2023 for obtaining the original record from the petition. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the petitioners have preferred the Criminal Misc. Petition bearing no. 1052 of 2023 against the entire proceeding of MJC No. 724 of 2021 which is pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the learned trial court has ignored the mandatory provision of Section 8 and Section 9 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for the appointment of Protection Officers, suo-moto registered the case against the present petitioners only on the basis of complaint case preferred by the respondent. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the dispute between the parties were amicably settled and they have executed a compromise deed due to which the petitioners have submitted the original compromise deed before this Hon’ble Court on 24.07.2024 and on the basis of the same, the Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 31.07.2024 on the request of the petitioners, who wants to withdraw the said petition, passed the order for withdrawal of above petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that due to some personal or other reason, the petitioners wants to obtain the said compromise deed submitted before this Hon’ble Court on 24.07.2024. He further contended that the petitioners are ready to file the duly attested photocopy of the said documents, if the Hon’ble Court would direct to produce the same before the Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 3 5. Perusal of record shows that the petitioners have preferred the Criminal Misc. Petition bearing no. 1052 of 2023 against the entire proceeding of MJC No. 724 of 2021 which is pending before the learned JMFC, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the learned trial court has ignored the mandatory provision of Section 8 and Section 9 under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for the appointment of Protection Officers, suo-moto registered the case against the present petitioners only on the basis of complaint case preferred by the respondent. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the dispute between the parties were amicably settled and they have executed a compromise deed due to which the petitioners have submitted the original compromise deed before this Hon’ble Court on 24.07.2024 and on the basis of the same, the Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 31.07.2024 on the request of the petitioners, who wants to withdraw the said petition, passed the order for withdrawal of above petition. 6. Therefore, the Registry is directed to return the said compromise deed which was filed on 24.07.2024 and the petitioners are directed to file the duly attested photocopy of the said documents. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima