Quashed

Chennu Ramesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Apr 2013CRLP/9786/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed four criminal petitions (two Crl.Ps. and two Crl.M.Ps.) seeking quashing of proceedings under sections 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court quashed the case citing settlement, divorce by consent, and remote possibility of conviction.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions allowed and proceedings in Cr.No.306/2009 on the file of III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry are accordingly quashed.

Chennu Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Dowry and Cruelty | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Crl.P.M.P.3553/2013 and Crl.P.No.9360/2009 Crl.P.M.P.3552/2013 and Crl.P.No.9786/2009

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

Criminal Petition No.9360/2009 by A-2 and A-3 and Criminal Petition No.9786/2009 by A-1 are filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated in Cr.No.306/2009 which was registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 342, 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶4

Crl.P.M.P. No.3553/2013 and Crl.P.M.P. No.3552/2013 are filed by A-2 and A-3, and A-1 respectively seeking quashing of Cr.No.306/2009 on the file of III Town Police Station,Rajahundry as the parties have settled the dispute and are not interested in prosecuting the matter.

¶5

The second respondent in both the criminal petitions as well as the petitioners in both the criminal petitions are present in court and they were identified by their respective counsel. When questioned the second respondent, stated that she has settled the matter and also obtained divorce by consent. The affidavit filed in support of the petitions would disclose that the second respondent in criminal petitions received Rs.23 lakhs towards permanent alimony and agreed to give articles which are in her custody.

¶6

The above crime was registered against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 342, 424 IPC r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Though some of the offences are not compoundable offences, in view of GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (2012) 10 SCC 303), this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can invoke its inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings more so when the matter relates to matrimonial dispute. The Apex Court also observed that the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and

¶7

compromise with the victim.

¶8

In view of the settlement between wife and husband and since both of them have obtained divorce, no purpose would be served in allowing the police to investigate into the matter. Even if the police file charge sheet, the victim who is the second respondent will not support her case and she has to be treated hostile during trial. In that view of the matter, since conviction of the petitioners appears to be bleak even in case police file charge sheet, continuation of investigation in Crime No.306/2009 on the file of III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry, is nothing but clear abuse of process of law.

¶9

Accordingly, both the criminal petition Nos.9360/2009 and 9786/2009 as well as Crl.M.P. Nos.3553/2013 and 3552/2013 are allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.306/2009 on the file of III Town Police Station, Rajahmundry are accordingly quashed.

¶10

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

¶11

Date: 22.04.2013. KMR

Chennu Ramesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chennu Ramesh, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kurra Chinna Sambasiva Rao, Vs K.Anuradha

Jugge. Dinesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Rama Varma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yarrola Kumar Vs State of Ap

Smt. Bommathi Swaroopa Rani Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yarkareddy Balakrishna Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh