Dismissed

S.Shakunthala and 3 Others v. State of Telangana, Rep by P.P and Another

Telangana HC18 Feb 2022CRLP/5897/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC praying for quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 498-A IPC. The Court held that since evidence of full payment under the Lok Adalat compromise was not placed on record, the petition could not be granted, directing parties to file a fresh compromise petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

S.Shakunthala and 3 Others Vs State of Telangana… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOFTELANGANA}

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE^G.RADHARANI

¶6

C RIMINAL PETITION NO:⁵⁸⁹⁷ oF²⁰¹⁷

¶7

Between:

¶8

i. S.Snatuntnala, W/o. S. Veerabhadaiah, aged 65 years, R/o. H.No 1-10-143/D, Shasabgutla. Mahabubnaqar.

¶9

Z i.VeJitnjOraiah. S/o.^{dangaraiah.aged73} vears,^{Retired Employee,R/o.} H.No.1-10-1431D, Shasabqutta,^{Mahabubnagar.}

¶10

Bhaskar, S/o. S.Veerabhadraiah,^{aged45 years,Business,R/oH No'1-10-} 143/0, Shasabgutta,^{l,4a h a b u bnaga r.}

¶11

Smt Revathi. W/o. Boddu^{Pandu, HouseWife, R/o. H No10-186/1, Ramnagar} Colony, Nagarkurool.

¶12

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED^{1 to 4}

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Tealngana,^{Rep. by its Public Prosecutor forthe State of Telangana} and Andhra Pradeah at^{HighCourt Buildings,Hyderabad.}

¶15

Smt. S.N/adhavi,^{W/o.LateS.Prasad, aged 40 years, R/o H No.1-9-168,} Weavers Colony, Gadwal District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO^COMPLAINANT

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr.P.C praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may be pleased} to call for the records^relating to the^{C.C.No.103 of 2014 on the file of the Court of} the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at^{Gadwaland quashthe same againstthe} Petitioners herein as^per the Lok^{Adalat Award passed in Lok Adalatcase} No,84/2015 by the Lok Adalat Bench^{at Gadwal datedl9-10-2015 as perthe} compromise memo.

¶18

CRLPMP. NO: 5984 OF²⁰¹⁷

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the l\4emorandum of Grounds^{of CriminalPetition,the HighCourt may be pleased} to stay of all further^proceedings C.C.No.103 of^{2014 on the file o, the Court of the} Judicial lvlagistrate of^First Class at^{Gadwal pending disposal of the above Criminal} Petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the l,4emorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and^{upon hearing the argumentsof Sri VV.} Narasimha Rao, Advocate^for the^{Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutoron} behalf of the Respondent No.'1^and of the^{Respondent No.2 not appearedeither in} person or by Advocate.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITI Otr- No.5897 of²⁰¹⁷

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This petition is filed by the^{petitioners-accused} Nos.l to 4^under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to^quash the^proceedings in CC No.l03 of2014^on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal,^registered against them for the offence under Section 498-A^{IPC, as per the} Award dated 19.10.2015 of the Lok Adalat^{passedin LA Case No.84} of'2015 by the Lok Adalat Bench at Cadrvai^{as per the cotnpronlise} merro

¶26

The case of the^{petitionerswas that the petitionels No.land 2} were the parents-in-law, the petitioner No.3^{was the brother-in-lawand} the petitioner No.4 was the sister-in-law of the de^{factocomplainant-} respondent No.2. The marriage of the de^{facto complainantandthe} younger son of petitioners No.l and 2, by^{name, S. Prasad, was} solemnized on 1 1.08.2001 as^per the^{Hindu rites andrituals in the} presence of both the family elders at Gadwal.^{They were blessedwith} a son. Unfortunately, the husband of the^de facto^{complainant diedon} 02.12.2004 in a road accident^at Palamakula.^{Since then, the de facto} complainant was residing with her^parents at Gadwal^alongwithher son. The de facto complainant filed a complaint^{belbre theCadwal} police on 23.08.2013 alleging that the petitioners were subjecting her to cruelty. Basing on the said cornplaint.^Gadwal Town^{Policeregistered} a case in Crime No.l59 of i0R^{LrnclerSection498-4 IPC and atier}

¶27

¶28

¶29

completing^{the investigation, filedcharge sheet and the samewas} numberedasCCNo'l03of2014.Thedefactocomplainantalsofiled another^{case under Protectionof Womenfrom Domestic ViolenceAct'} 2005 before^{the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal vide DVC} No.8 of^{2014 against the petitioners'She alsofiled O'S' No'33 of 2010} before the^{II Additional DistrictJudge at Mahabubnagarfor partitionof} suit schedule^lands.

¶30

Thereafter.^{both the petitionel'sand the de facto complainant} entered into^{a colrpromise'As per tlre conrpronrise' the petitioncrs} No.l and^{2 agreedto pay an amountof Rs ?2'00'000/-to the de facto} complainant^{and her minorson for relinquishmentof rights on the suit} schedule^{properties in O.S.No 33 of20l0and the de facto cornplainant} agreed to^{withdraw the criminalcase videCC No' 103 of 2014and} DVCNo.Sof2O|4beforetheJudicialMagistrateofFirstClass, Gadwal against^{the petitioners Thepetitionerspaid an amountof} Rs.11,00,000/-^{to the de facto complainant'Thereafter' the matter was} referred to^{the Lok Adatat Bench at Gadwal' The Lok Adalat bench} vide L.A.^{CaseNo.84 of 201 5 passed an awardbasing onthe} compromise^{petition filed by both the parties on 19'10'2015'After} receipt of the^{amountfrom the petitioners'the de facto complainant} failed to withdraw^{CC No l03 of 2Ol4 on the file of the Judicial} Magistrate^{of FirstClass.Gadwalas per the compromise memo and} was harassing^the Petitioners

¶31

¶32

4 Heard^{the leamed counselfor the petitionersand the leamed}

¶33

Assistant^{Public Plosecutor}

¶34

5.^{Notice was seryedon the respondentNo'2-defacto} complainant^{but shefailedto appearbeforethe Court and contestthe} nlatler

¶35

The^{learned counsel tbr the petitionels subnrittedthatthe} compromise^{was bilateral andwouldmean mulual adjusrrrent'I3oth} the^{petitioners andthe de tacto colnplainantenleredinto compromise} and^{filed a memo beforethe Lok Adalat Bench at Gadwal'basingon} which^{the Award was passedin Lok AdalatcaseNo'84 of 2015} terminating^{arl the legal proceedings by way of mutuarconsent.when} once^{the Lok Adalat Award was passed' no appeal wouldlie against} such Award'^{In the instantcasethe Awardwaspassedlong back in the} year 2015.^{The said Award became final and conclusive' The same} was binding^{on both the pafties' The de facto complainantagreedto} withdraw^{the criminalcase andother cases But'thereafter failed to} comply^{the same as per the Lok Adalat Award'as suchthe criminal} case^{in CC No i03 of 2014 on the tlle of the Judicial Magistrateof} First^{crass, Gadwarwas liable ro be quasrred and reliedupon the} judgments^{of the Hon'bleApexCourt in Ruchi Agarwalv' Amit} Kumar^{Agra*aland othersr and in JitentlraRaghuvanshi& Ors"} r'. Babita^{Ilaghuvanshi& Anr'2'}

¶36

l'.Xi:^l',]":iirt"1'rr,3^{decidedon rs03 20rs'}

¶37

¶38

The learned Assisrant Public Prosecutor reported to decide

¶39

the petition on merits.

¶40

Perused the record. The record would disclose that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police on 23.08.2013 at 8.30 PM alleging that after the death of her husband in the road accident near Shamshabad on 02.12.2004, her parents-inJaw, brotherinJaw and sister-inlaw were harassing her mentally by demanding additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. A panchayat was held in the presence of the elders, but they did not change their attitude and harassed her continuously. She was necked out ofthe house along with her son on 04.12.2010 and since then, she^was staying with her^parents at Gad\r'ai Tou,n.^-fhe police. after investigation, filed charge^sheet against the petitioners-Al to z.1 fbr the offence under Section 498-A IPC.

¶41

The record would also disclose that the de facto complainant and her son filed O.S No.33 of 2010 and DVC No.8 of^{2014 on the} file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal. Both^{the parties} filed^a Memo before the II Additional District Judge,^{Mahabubnagarin O.S.} No.33 of 2010 stating that:

¶42

"on the advice of elders, they settled^{their disputesout} of^the Court and accordingly the defendants No.l ald 2 agreed to^pay an amount of Rs.22,00,0001^(Twenty Two Lakhs rupees only) to the plaintiffs for relinquishment of rights on the suit^schedule properties and out of the said settlement in the interest and welfare ofthe minor plaintiff No.2, the defendants I and 2 agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.l1,00,000/-^(Eleven lakhs^rupees only) in the above case, subject to condition of the^plaintiffs to vacate from the house No.l-10-140D, Shashabguna, Ma}bubnagar u'ithin 24 hours from the date ofdeposit ofamount of Rs.1 I ,00.000/- in the court and the^plaintiffs had to^withdraw

¶43

¶44

the criminal^{cases filed vide CCNo 103of 2014 and DVC No8} "i:z6tq uoainrr rhe^{;;r"r" defendants the Judicial on the Magistrate ne\lda1 oi ol First class' dcpositingthe cadwalsaid} ;,r; t; thc coun. lill^{thc rrithdraurl ol thc irbo\e(u)er' lhc} rrii "nl"rr, haci to be^{keptin thc CourtCCI)Accountandlhc} ,",""i^i"g amoutrt^{sould tc paid b1 thc def'endrntsNo l and,2} ,,litt in a'nlon,tt of^{passing tllc l-okAdalut decrec'IIthc} ,f"i,ii;ffi^{fr"('fnr,t abiie thc ah'rctcrn)5u)d i0nditir-rtts ol thc} i.r"rt,,,,t No l^{and l'thc plriDtill'l)J\c l'r l'orcg(\tlteir riglrts in} thc suil schedule^{property- and thc dclendants No lLrnd Ican} .iuiJo.t"f'una^{oi ttreaUovedcposited amount tionlthe plaintifT} No.l and in case^{the defendants No'l and 2 not paid the amount} *i t in A *on,t..^{the plaintilli werecntitledf'or 50-u6sharcin thc} suit propenies."

¶45

Both the^{parties signedthe said Memo'}

¶46

The Award^{passedby the Lok Adalatbenchat Gadwal in} L.A. Case^{No.84 of 2015 dated 19'10'2015woulddisclosethat DVC} No.8 of^{2014 was referredto the Lok Adalat bench and the same was} compromised^{by recording the compromisebetween the partiesandthe} Award^{waspassed in termsof the compromisethat the petitioners (de} facto complainant^{herein and her son)received an amountof} Rs.l 1,00,000/-^{towardstheir peffnanentalimony and maintenanceand} would not have^{any sortof right or interest over the propertyof the} respondents'^{(petitioners herein) tamill in future and relinquishedall} their rights over^{it. The saidAuardrvassignedb1'both the parties and} the counsel^{I'epresentinp. thetltbc'iirre the i\lenlbersol thc l'ok Adalat} Bench

¶47

1 I . Thus,^{thoughthe compromise memo woulddisclose that the} petitioners^{agreed to pay an amountof Rs 22'00'000/-to thede facto} complainant,^{the EDBs are fi1ed only for an amountof Rs'11'00'0001} and it was not^{knownwhetherthe petitioners had paid the balance}

¶48

amount within 8 months as agreed by them after passing the Lok Adalat Award. The de lacto complainant did not appear before the Courl to repon whether she received the balance amount or not.

¶49

In the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the parties compronrised the matter between them. In Ruchi Agarwal's case (1 supra) a compromise deed was entered into by the parties and the both the parties agreed to withdraw all the criminal and civil complaints filed against each other. But, the wife wrote a letter to the Family Court stating that she was withdrawing the compromise petition as she had not received the agreed amount, but subsequently, when her statement was recorded by the Family Court, she withdrew the said letter and stated before the court in her statement that she wanted a divorce and that there was no dispute in relation to any amount pending. The court, after recording the said statement, granted divorce under Section ll-B ol the Hindu Marriage Acr dissolving the rnarriagc'h1 rnutual consent. The Hon'bie Apex Court obserued that:

¶50

.'... basing on the conrpnrrnise the appellant obtained a dirorcc as desired hr her undcr Section lj(ll)of rhe tlindu \taniage Act and in partial compliancc of thc rerms ol the compromise shc withdrcr.r' thc crinrinal case filed underScction l25of thc Criminai Procedure Codc but tbr reasons better knou,n to her she did not withdraw the comp)aints filed by her under Sections 498A. 123,506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 ofthe Dowry Prohibition Act. ..., Having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of rhe compromise. we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant therein. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which the appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents."

¶51

l I

¶52

i t

¶53

and held that continuation^{of proceedings is an abtlse of processof law}

¶54

and dismissed the^{appealandquashed the proceedings.}

¶55

ln Jitendra Raghuvanshi's^{case (2 supra), rvhich was a}

¶56

case under Section 498-A IPC, it^{was observedthat:}

¶57

"ln our vieu', it is the duty^{of the couns to encouragegenurne} settlements of matrimonial^{disputes, particularly,when thesame} are on considerable increase.^{Even if the offencesare non-} compoundable, if^{theyrelateto matrimonial disputes andthe} court is satished that the^{parties have settled thesameamicably} and without any^pressue, we hold that^{for the purposeof} securing ends ofjustice,^{Section 320 of the Code wouldnot be a} bar to the exercise ofpower^{of quashing of FlR, complaintor the} subsequent criminal^{proceedings."}

¶58

The present petition^{was filed to quash the proceedingsin} CC No.l03 of2014^{as per the LokAdalatAward passedin LACase} No.84 of 2015. The Lok^{Adalat Award would nol mention about} recording of any compromise^{with regard to CCNo.I 03 of 2014' It} was passed only with^{regardto DVC No.8 of 2014 on the flle of the} Judicial Magistrate^{of First Class, Gadrval.It also rvould notrel'erto} O.S. No.33 o1'2010^{on the llic ot'llAdditionalt)istrict Judge'} Mahabubnagar. The^{memofiledby the partiesin O.S No 33 ol20l0} would disclose that^{the parties agreedto pay an amountof} Rs.22,00,000/- to the^{de facto complainant,but depositedonlyan} amount of Rs.11,00,000/-.^{As no evidence was placed before this} Court to show that the^{petitioners had paid the balance amountto the} de facto complainant^{- respondentNo.2 andthat they complied with the} terms as agreed by them^{in full andfinalsettlement,they cannotseek} quashing of the petition on the^{said ground. As such, it is considered} fit to dismiss the^{petition.tlthe petitioners paid the balanceamountas}

¶59

¶60

ageed by them, they can file a compromise petition before the trial Court itself and can compound the matter as per A.P. (Amendment) Act,2003 to Section 320 Cr.P.C. rnaking the offence under Section

¶61

498-A IPC cornpoundable.

¶62