Husband sought quashing of a dowry-harassment case after an amicable settlement with his wife, who filed an affidavit supporting quashing; the Court verified voluntariness through the Legal Services Committee and quashed the proceedings.
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.
132171
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
l.A.Nos.2 AND 3 OF 2025
ln/And
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6213 OF 2025
Between:
Sri Aarey Yashwanth, S/o Sri Sarveshwar Rao aged about 33 years, Occ . Pvt Employee R/o Plot No 16-95, Sri Sri Homes, BN Reddy Nagar Almasguda, Balapur Mandal, Rangareddy District
...Petitioner/Al /H usband
AND
...Respondent No.1
...Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the Proceedings in CC No 4980 of 2022, on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at LB Nagar.
LA. NO: 2OF 2025
\
Between:
Smt Kukutla Chandrika, Wo Sri Aarey Yashwanth aged about 29 years, Occ Pvt Employee R/o Plot No 78 86 79, Sri Sai Baiaji Home Badangpet, Balapur, Rangareddy District. Respondent No.2/De{acto Complainant.
...Petitioner/Respondent No.2 in l.A.Nos.2 & 3 OF 2025
AND
NIRJ
2
l. ).No..2,tnrl )oJ 2D5 u/unl (1.P.N:0.(.'21 ) o.[ 2025
'2012 (10) scc 303 'z202+Ittsc t89 I zo19 (5) scc 688
J1
^'7R,/ I.,l.Noi.1 ,nd ) o.l 202 i in/ and (.r1.l'.No.62I ) ol 20!i
quashed against the petitioner/accused.
Pending miscellaneousapplications,if any, shall stand closed
SD/- AHMED ABDULLAKHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
NVB/PSI,
YY
HIGH COURT
DATED:0310712025
COMMON ORDER
o(t ti 1.- .j r,4
f
li- 0 5 AlJ6 206 rl
L)
-+
t
J''rlarri-,ol
lA.Nos.2 AND 3 of 2025 ln/And CRLP.No.6213 of 2025
DISPOSING OF THE CRLP AND ALLOWING THE lA.Nos.2&3OF2025
.*<eli 4. X-.
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELIINGAIIIA AT: ITTOBRABAD
Crl.P.No L4 t3of2025 Between:
Sri Aarey Yashwanth S/o Sri Sarveshwar Rao aged about 33 years, Occ : Brt Employee R/o Plot No 16-95, Sri Sri Homes, BN Reddy Nagar Almasguda, Balapur Mandal, R R Dist.)
...Petitioner (A1 / Husband)
AND
Rep. by its Ftrblic Prosecutor,
AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT NO.2 / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
I. Kukutla Chandrika, wife of Sr Aarey Yashwanth & Daughter of Sri K. Suryanarayana, aged about 29 years,, Occupation: Pvt. Employee, resident of Plot No.78 & 79, Sn Sree Sai Balaji Homes, Badangpet Post, R.R. District, Hyderabad - 500 058, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm on the oathas follows:
l. That I am the petitioner/respondent No 2lde-facto complainant herein and as such, well acquainted with the facts of the case deposed hereunder.
.l
.rtW
V {,(
2O2O, as per the Hindu rites & customs.Our marriage was an arranged marriage. Therea-re no issuesout of the Wedlock, upon my complaint a case, CC No 4980of 2022 was registered against the respondentNo 1 to 5/A1 ,on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad atLB Nagar.So, respondent No 1 to S/petitioners/Al filedabove quash petition.
2022 U I Sec.498-A of IPC frled against thepetitioners/Al i.e, my husband, his parents including his sister and brother-in-law on the file of III Addl. Metropolitan iVlegistrate, Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar w'ill not serve any purpose and desirable to be closed. That I have no further claims against the respondent No 1 to henceforth. 5/petitioners/A I
7 . I submit that the myself and petitioner herein have entered into an compromise. We in order to ameliorate the dilferences havedecided to compromise the matter and settle it once for all.
I hereby declare that I have no objection toquash the proceedings against the petitioner herein in CC No 4980 of 2022 on the hle of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabadat LB Nagar U/s.498-A, 494 IPC & Sec.4 & 6 of DP Act and thereshall be no further claims against the petitioners/ accused herein.
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court maybe pleased to permit me to withdraw the above case against the accused inthe interest of Justice.
V
Sworn and signed before me On this the 28th day of DEPONtrNT September, 2025 at Hyderabad Ir,rADVOCATE/ DERABAD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings in CC No.4980 of 2022 under Sections 498-A, 494 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 DP Act should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and anotherRelied on¶7
2012 (10) SCC 303 · Who else cites this
Anil Mishra v. State of U.P.Relied on¶7
2024 INSC 189 · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and othersRelied on¶7
2019 (5) SCC 688 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 4 enactments
Sri Aarey Yashwanth
The State of Telangana
Smt Kukutla Chandrika
N. Tukaramji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
