The criminal court quashed criminal proceedings and allowed petitions after parties amicably settled disputes regarding matrimonial rights and maintenance, evidenced by a pension agreement and partial payment.
Quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.232 of 2014; permission accorded to compound the offence.
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 U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.P.M.P.No.2179 of 2015 in Crl.P.No.1993 of 2015 and Criminal Petition No.1993 of 2015
COMMON ORDER:
T h e defacto complainant and her counsel Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy are present. Accused Nos.2 and 3 and their counsel Sri K.Sai Babu are present. A.1—Dr.Pendem Suresh is absent and he is represented by A.2 who is father and G.P.A Holder.
Heard both sides and perused the petition.
On the report given by the defacto complainant, the police of WPS, CCS, Hyderabad registered Cr.No.163 of 2013 against accused and after investigation filed charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance and registered as C.C.No.232 of 2014.
While so, both parties and their Counsel who attended the Court today submitted that they have amicably settled all their disputes at the intervention of elders, as per which the defacto complainant and A.1 proposed to take divorce and in fact they have filed Divorce Petition vide F.O.P.No.654 of 2013 on the file of Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District which is pending and the maintenance claim of the defacto complainant was also taken care of and A.1 agreed to pay Rs.7,00,000/- to her in two
installments towards her maintenance claim and today he paid Rs.4,00,000/- to her by way of D.D. bearing No.696689 dated 04.03.2015 drawn on State Bank of India, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad and he will pay the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/to her at the time of obtaining divorce in FOP No.654 of 2013 and in view of it, the defacto complainant has no objection for quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.232 of 2014 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and therefore, permission may be accorded to compound the offence and accordingly, quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.
Having regard to the above submission and in view of the fact that it is a matrimonial matter wherein the parties have amicably resolved their disputes, no useful purpose will be served if they are driven to trial since they compromised the issue and following the decision reported in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anothe r[1] this petition is allowed and permission is accorded to the parties to compound the offence and proceedings in C.C.No.232 of 2014 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.
In the result, both the petitions are accordingly allowed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J
Date: 16.03.2015 Note: Issue C.C in two days (b/o) scs
[1] (2012) 10 SCC 303
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 498A IPC, 406 IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act given the amicable settlement and filing of divorce petition.
Whether the parties are given permission to compound the offence.
Whether the impugned Criminal Complaint No. 232 of 2014 is quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and anotherFollowed¶8
(2012) 10 SCC 303 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Defacto Complainant
Accused Nos. 2 and 3
U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
