HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6595 of 2017
ORDER:
The petitioners/A-1 to A-4, filed the present Criminal
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the
proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.424 of 2015 on the
file of the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon,
Warangal District, registered for the offences punishable under
Section 498-A of I.P.C., and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent/de facto
complainant, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner/A-1, a case in
Crime No.175 of 2015 was registered against the petitioners/A-1
to A-4 for the aforesaid offences by the Police, Jangaon. The
allegations in the complaint are that the marriage of the 2nd
respondent/de facto complainant with the 1st petitioner/A-1 took
place on 24.06.2012 and at the time of marriage her father had
given an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs cash, 20 tulas of gold
ornaments apart from household articles worth Rs.1.00 lakh.
After the marriage, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant
joined the company of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and they lived
happily for a period of one and half year. Subsequently, the
petitioners/A-1 to A-4 started harassing her both mentally and
2
physically and demanded her to get additional dowry from her
parents. After completion of investigation, the police filed
charge sheet, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.424 of 2015
and the same is pending before the Principal Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Jangaon.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-4,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st
respondent/ State, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/de facto complainant and perused the record. .
Learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 would
submit that due to intervention of elders, the matter has been
settled amicably and the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the 2nd
respondent/de facto complainant have filed F.C.O.P.No.1062 of
2016 before the Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District
at Malkajgiri, under Section 10-A of the Indian Divorce Act, for
grant of divorce by mutual consent. By an order, dated
31.12.2016, the learned Family Judge, granted divorce by
dissolving the marriage between the 1st petitioner/A-1 and 2nd
respondent/de facto complainant. It is also submitted that once
the marriage was dissolved and the relationship between the 1st
petitioner/A-1 and the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant is
ceased, no purpose would be served in continuing the
3
proceedings in C.C.No.424 of 2015. In support of the said
submission, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others1.
Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto
complainant has categorically admitted about the filing of
mutual divorce petition and also granting of divorce.
A perusal of the record reveals that the 1st petitioner/A-1
and the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant, have filed
F.C.O.P.No.1062 of 2016, under Section 10-A of the Indian
Divorce Act, before the XVI-Additional District and Sessions
Judge-cum-XVI-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-
III-Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri,
for grant of decree of divorce by mutual consent. In the said
F.C.O.P., it is clearly stated that the matter has been amicably
settled between the parties and the 1st petitioner/A-1 agreed to
pay Rs.21.00 lakhs to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant
towards full and final settlement and permanent alimony and
she also agreed to withdraw M.C.No.19 of 2015 and also
C.C.No.424 of 2015 filed by her. A perusal of the material on
record would show that an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs has been
paid to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant by way of two
1
(2005) 3 SCC 299
4
demand drafts bearing No.213907, dated 21.03.2016,
D.D.No.398132, dated 26.04.2016, drawn on State Bank of
Hyderabad, Macha Bollaram Branch and on the date of filing the
evidence affidavit ie., on 28.11.2016, remaining amount of
Rs.11.00 lakhs has been paid to the 2nd respondent/de facto
complainant vide D.D.No.431611, dated 11.11.2016 for Rs.5.00
lakhs, D.D.No.005052, dated 23.11.2016 for Rs.6.00 lakhs, drawn
on Andhra Bank, Dubbaka Branch and the 2nd respondent/de
facto complainant has acknowledged to receive the said amount
of Rs.21.00 lakhs and the copies of the said demand drafts were
marked as Ex.A6 in the said F.C.O.P. After considering the
evidence of the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the 2nd respondent/de
facto complainant, the learned III-Additional Family Judge,
Ranga Reddy District, Malkajgiri, allowed the said F.C.O.P. on
31.12.2016 and granted a decree of divorce by dissolving the
marriage between them.
In Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others
case (1 supra), the Apex Court observed as under:
“6. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that in the
compromise petition filed before the Family Court, the
appellant admitted that she has received Stridhan and
maintenance in lump sum and that she will not be
entitled to maintenance of any kind in future. She also
5undertook to withdraw all proceedings civil and
criminal filed and initiated by her against the
respondents within one month of the compromise
deed which included the complaint under Sections
498A, 323 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act from which complaint this
appeal arises. In the said compromise, the respondent-
husband agreed to withdraw his petition filed under
Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending before
the Senior Judge, Civil Division, Rampur and also
agreed to give a consent divorce as sought for by the
appellant.
7. It is based on the said compromise the appellant
obtained a divorce as desired by her under Section
13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial
compliance of the terms of the compromise she
withdrew the criminal case filed under Section 125 of
the Criminal Procedure Code but for reasons better
known to her she did not withdraw that complaint
from which this appeal arises.
Xxxxxxxxxxx
9. In view of the above said subsequent events and the
conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the
process of the court if the criminal proceedings from
which this appeal arises is allowed to continue.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion to do
complete justice, we should while dismissing this
appeal also quash proceedings.”
6
In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in
the above referred case and having regard to the amicable
settlement between the parties and 1st respondent/de facto
complainant has already received the settlement amount, I am of
the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 is nothing but an abuse of the
process of Court and that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
have to be exercised in the present case.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is
allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.424 of 2015 on the file of
the Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon, Warangal
District, against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending shall stand closed.
__
JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
02.03.2020
gkv/Gsn
