Allowed

Challa Laxmipathi, and 3 Others, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC15 Feb 2022CRLP/8110/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court considered whether to quash criminal proceedings pending against petitioners. Accepting a marital settlement agreement and noting acquiescence by the de facto complainant, the Court quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 756 of 2012 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, are quashed.

Challa Laxmipathi, and 3 Others, Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8110 OF 2013

¶6

B etwee n :

¶7

1, Challa Laxmipathi, S/o Challa Chandraiah, Occ: Business and Agriculture, Retired Head Master, R/o 12-3712, Bhiknoor Village and lt4andal, Nizamabad.

¶8

2, Challa Vijayalaxmi, W/o Challa Laxmipathi, Occ: Housewife, Rlo 12-3712, Bhiknoor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad.

¶9

Kanduri Kavitha, W/o Kanduri Ajay, Occ: Housewife, R/o 13-6-677, Showkari, Kan.ran, Hyderabad-500 067.

¶10

Kanduri Ajay, S/o Kandun Nagendra, Occ: Business, R/o 13-6-677, Showkari, Karuvan, Hyderabad-SOO 067. ..,PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No. 2 to 5

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P,. at Hyderabad.

¶13

Burugu Rajendra Kumar, S/o Burugu Ramulu, Occ: Business, F/o 3-4-9711 1, lndiranagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-sOO 013. ( Defacto Complainant )

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the complaint in CC.No.756 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the lll Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lalbhadurnagar.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLPMP. NO: 7542 OF 2013)

¶17

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the lt4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in CC.No.756 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the lll lr,4etropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lalbhadurnagar, pending disposal of the above Crl.Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BALAJI TVEDAMALLI ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and M/s. P. SURESH KUIVAR, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, being not present

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

/ V

¶21

HONOURABLE DR.^{JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA}

¶22

CRL.P.No.8110 of 2013

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard the submission^{of the learned counsel,who is} appearing for the^{petitioners/ accused 2 to 5 and the learned} Assistant Public Prosecutor,^{who isrepresentingthe 1"t} respondent.

¶25

2, Tholrgh Sri Suresh^{Kumar Pooserlais on record} representing thg fnrr^{respondent/de} facto^{complainant,the} learned counsel faiis^{to appear and submit his contentions'} 3. This is a petition filed^{under Section 482 Cr'P'Cseeking} the Court to^{quash the proceedingsin C'C'No'756 of 2Ol2} that are^{pending againstthe petitioners, whoare accused2 to} 5, before the Court^{of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad'} Ranga ReddY District'

¶26

Learned counsel for^{the petitioners submits that the} de facto complainant^{is the father-in-law of accusedNo'1 by} name Challa Santosh^{Kumar.Accused Nos'2 and 3 are the} parents of accused^{No.1 and accused No'4 is the sister of A1} and accused No'S^{is husband of accused No'4' He further} submits that a complaint^{was given by the father-in-1ar'v1of A 1}

¶27

Dr.CSt.,J Crl. P.l'o.8 I I 0 ol 20 l -l

¶28

that all the accused committed offences punishable under sections 498-A,406 and 42O IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police without verifying the real facts filed charge sheet, which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel also states that accused No.l as well as his wife i.e., daughter of the de facto complainant are residing at USA and they both obtained divorce before the competent Court at USA and thereafter, got married again separately and therefore, no cause of action survives for proceeding further in this case. Learned counsel also states that a marital settlement agreement was entered into and all the matters are settled in pursuance of the said agreement of settlement.

¶29

Learned Assistant Public prosecutor fairly submits that in the light of the marital settlement agreement, appropriate orders may be passed.

¶30

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the point that emerges for consideration is:-

¶31

Whether th.ere exists ang justifi.abte grounds to exercise pou.)ers u.nd.er Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the proceedinqs that are pending aga{nst the petitioners/ A2 to A5 in C.C.No.756 of 2012 on the fite of the couft of III Metropolitctn Magistrate, Cg berabad?.

¶32

Dt.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8l l0 of 2013

¶33

¶34

The marital settlement agreement, d,ated 29.It.2012 that is brought on record by the petitioners, goes to show that the said agreement was entered into -by the accused No.1 and his rvife by name Soumya Burugu and that they have freel.v and voluntarily entered into an agreement regarding all aspects which are mentioned under Articles 1 to B. B. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that basing on the said agreement, the wife of A1 executed release deed in favour of the accused No.3 i.e., 2"a petitioner herein in the month of December, 2012. Learned counsel atso brought to the notice of this Court the receipt that was issued by the learned counsel for Smt. Soumya- Burugu, wherein it is mentioned that Soumya Burugu has undertaken to initiate steps to withdraw the criminal case in Cr.No.541 of 2Ol2 of Uppal Police Station pending on the file III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, after full and complete compliance of the M.S.A. dated 29.11.2012. Learned counsel furrher submits that the de facto complainant i.e., the 2.,rrespondent herein is also a signatory to the said receipt. The contents of the receipt reveal justification in the said submission. Learned counsel further submits that when a settlement is arrived at

¶35

l)r⁽ Sl. .J ( | | l) .\i) ,\ I lt) t,t :tti l

¶36

-,1

¶37

in matrimonial disputcs quashing ol proceedings ]S

¶38

sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision ol the Honble Apex Court which is reported in a case between J itendra Raghuuanshi and others us. Babita Raghuuanshi and anotherl, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as foliows:

¶39

tt14. The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are wide and unfettered. In B.S.Joshi, this Court has upheld the powers of the High Court under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings^.,vhere dispute is of a private nature and a compromise is cntcred into betu'een tlte parties who are r'"illing to settle thcir cliffcrences anlicallh. We are satisfied that the said decision is clirectlv a1>p)icable to the casc on Iland and the liigh Court ought to have (luashed tltc criminal procecclings b.v acccpting the settlcmcnt arrivcd at.

¶40

i 5. ln our vierv, it is tl.re duty of the Courts to eltcourage ge nuine settlements of matrimonial (lisputes. ltarticularlt, rvhen the same are on considerable incrcase. Dven iI the offences are non-compou ndable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes ancl the Court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends ofjustice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings.

¶41

There has been an ourburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The Institution of marriage occupies an important place and it has an important role to play in the society. Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. Il the parties ponder over their defaults and

¶42

'^{(ZO t3) .t SuprenreCourt Cascs 58}

¶43

DT.CSL,J Crl.P.No.8l⁾ 0 of 201 3

¶44

terminate their disputes^{amicably bymutualagreement} instead of fighting it otlt^{in a Courtof larv, in order to do} complete^justice in the matrimonial^{matters, the Courtsshould} br less hesitant in exercising^{their extraordinarv} .iurisd^{iction lt} is trite to state that the^{power underSection482 shottldbe} excrcisecl sparingly and \'ith circumspection^{onl-v\'hen the} Court is convinced, on the^{basis of materialon record, that} allon'ing the^{proceedingsto continueu'ould be an abuse of} process of Court or that the^{ends of justicerequire thatthe} proceedings ought to be^{quashed.We also make it clear that} exercise of such^{powerwould dependupon the facts and} circumstances of each case^{and ithas to be exercisedin} appropriate cases in order^{to do real and substantialjusticefor} the administration of^{whichalonethe Courts exist.It is the} duty of the Courts to^{encouragegenuinesettlementsof} matrimonial disputes^{and Section482 of the Codeenablesthe} High Court and Article^{142 of the Constitutionenablesthis} Court to^pass such orders."

¶45

g. Learned counsel for the^{petitionersalso relies upon the} decision of the Hon'ble^{Apex Court in the case between Bilan} Sengupta and another^{us. State of West Bengal and another)} wherein the Apex Court^{heldas follows:}

¶46

"6. As per the appellants, the^{parties have settledthe} Inatter, as the1,^{htrve decicledto keep harmonybetween them to} cnatrle them to live^{u'ith peace ancl love. 'l'hecompromis<r} records that respondents^{have no grievances$'hatsoever} against the appellants^{and want both the appellantsto get} acquitted from the^{cases.Further,both the parties have} undertaken not to indulge^{in any litigationagainsteachother} and withdraw all the complaints^{pending betweenthem before} the Court.

¶47

I (2018) SCC Online SC 762

¶48

DT,CSL,J Crl.P.No.81l0 of 2013

¶49

¶50

ln the aforesaid circumstances and going b1, the spirit of the law laid dorvn bv this Court in B.S.Joshi u. State of Haryana, lve are of the opinion that the High Court should have accepted the settlement and compounded the offenccs. It is, n1orr.: so, $,hen lhe settlemeltt betu,ecn the parties, who !ere husband and wife, was even actcd upon as the parties took mutual divorcc on (hat basis."

¶51

As the said legal position and the observations made

¶52

clearly fit to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the de facto complainant, who is arrayed as the 2",1 respondent, has not appeared disputing any of the contentions made which a-re to some extent supported by the l"t respondent also, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶53

1 1. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and all further proceedings agaifist the petitioners in C.C.No.756 of 2Ol2 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, C.vberabad, are herebv quashed.

¶54

Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if an-v, shall plso stand closed.

¶55

¶56

Sd/-K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( ttt SECTION OFFICER

¶57