The court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, allowing a compromise between parties and consequent acquittal under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Criminal petitions and petition are allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.260 of 2011 quashed; petitioners acquitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Crl.M.P.Nos.10722 & 10723 of 2011
& CRIMINAL PETITION No.7582 of 2011
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners-accused, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.260 of 2011 on the file of the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, 2nd respondent herein, that during pendency of the Criminal Petition, at the intervention of elders and well wishers, both the parties compromised the matter out of Court and, in terms of compromise, they also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 11.10.2011 and they also filed Crl.P.M.P.Nos.10722 and 10723 of 2011 with a prayer to record the compromise and to compound the offence. Therefore, they prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in the calendar case.
The 2nd respondent is present before this Court and produced her identity and the same is verified by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. She 2nd respondent stated that on the advice of elders and well-wishers, herself and the petitioners have compromised the matter out of Court and therefore she intends to withdraw the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners with free will and consent and there is no coercion or undue influence from any other side for the same.
The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no objection to quash the calendar case inasmuch as both the parties
settled the matter amicably.
In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would serve no purpose and invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the proceedings in the calendar case can be quashed by compounding the offence. Further, the parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards costs before the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, and accordingly, they paid the amount before the said Authority vide receipt No.391 dated 12.10.2011.
Accordingly, the Crl.M.P.Nos.10722 and 10723 of 2011 and the Criminal Petition are allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.260 of 2011 on the file of the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, are hereby quashed and, consequently, the petitioners are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The affidavit of the 2nd respondent and copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.10.2011 filed into Court be made as part of this order.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petition shall stand closed.
__________________ RAJA ELANGO, J
12th October, 2011 cbs
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Crl.M.P.Nos.10722 & 10723 of 2011
&
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9800 of 2011
(Allowed)
12th October, 2011
cbs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act can be quashed upon compromise between parties.
Whether a case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable where the offence has been compounded.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
petitioners
2nd respondent
RAJA ELANGO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
