Simha Anjani Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

#1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

#2. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY The Court made the following: //2// CRLP.No.6557 of 2021 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CRIMINAL PETITION No.6557 of 2021 O R D E R : The petitioners are seeking quash of CC.No.78 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru. The petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 6 and alleged to have committed offences under Sections 498- A, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

#2. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent, the petitioners 2 and 3 are brothers of the 1st petitioner, 4th petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner, 5th petitioner is the wife of 3rd petitioner and 6th petitioner is the son of late S.S.R.C.Prasada Rao, who happens to be the brother of petitioners 1, 2 and 3.

#3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent was performed on 02.09.2018 as per the Hindu Customs and Religious Practices. It is alleged thathte marriage was performed after accepting dowry and that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent were not given a separate room to live and that the family members of the 1st petitioner harassed the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent set up their family separately from the joint family at Visakhapatnam and //3// CRLP.No.6557 of 2021 that the defacto-complainant was harassed by the 1st petitioner after coming home in intoxicated condition. It is stated in the complaint that three years before filing the complaint, the parents the defacto complainant had taken away the defacto complainant after reaching an understanding with the petitioners family that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent would separate amicably subject to the 1st petitioner paying an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is alleged that the petitioners have adhere to the said agreement.

#4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a mutual agreement for divorce was also executed on 04.09.2019 between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent. A copy of the said document is also filed as an annexure. Clause 9 of the said agreement makes it clear that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent have agreed for appointing a Lawyer mutually and apply for a mutual consent divorce and that the agreed amount was to be paid before the Family Court at the time of grant of divorce. Apart from the other conditions which were to be abided by 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

#5. The statements recorded by the police of the listed witnesses also do not specifically attribute any allegations which would attract the punishment for offences under section 498-A, 506 r/w.34 IPC and //4// CRLP.No.6557 of 2021 Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in so far as the petitioners 2 to 6 is concerned.

#6. The 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent had agreed for a mutual settlement of disputes and the said agreement was executed in presence of as many as 11 witnesses including the LW.2 and LW.3. The petitioners 2 and 3 are also witness signatories.

#7. The complaint is filed alleging non-payment of the agreed amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by the 1st petitioner and as per the settlement dated 04.09.2019, it is the responsibility of the 1st petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of grant of divorce by the competent Family Court. The mutual divorce agreement dated

04.09.2019 does not fasten the liability or responsibility for petitioners 2 to 6 in payment of the agreed amount.

#8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rajiv Kumar Sharma and another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that after settlement and disposal of matrimonial proceedings the High Court ought not to have declined to quash the proceedigns and instead ought to have taken note of the fact that parties are amicably resolved all their differences and consciously chose to unconditionally drop all proceedings related to marriage inter se including the criminal 1 Criminal Appeal No.1599 of 2019, 21.10.2019 //5// CRLP.No.6557 of 2021 action initiated by the complainant and thus quashed complaint case.

#9. The facts of this case are distinct and different from the facts dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment. It is not in dispute that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent are entered into a mutual agreement in the year 2019. The only condition which remains uncompiled is with regard to obtaining a mutual consent divorce from a competent Family Court and payment of an amount of five lakhs by the 1st petitioner to the 2nd respondent at the time of grant of mutual consent divorce. There was no case filed against any of the petitioners as on the date of entering into mutual agreement for divorce by the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent.

#10. However, on facts, the matrimonial issue between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent remains unresolved and it is for the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner to approach the competent Family Court for filing the petition for mutual consent divorce. The condition of payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as agreed between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent would have to be complied in letter and spirit by the 1st petitioner at the time of grant of divorce.

#11. This Court has perused the entire record, there are no specific allegations against the petitioners 2 to 6 and vague allegations //6// CRLP.No.6557 of 2021 cannot sustain and withstand the scrutiny of cross-examination in trial. Continuation of trial against the petitioners 2 to 6 would cause unnecessary hardship to petitioners 2 to 6. The petitioners 2 to 6 are the relatives of the 1st petitioner and the allegations against them are absolutely vague.

#12. Considering the same, this Court is inclined to quash CC.No.78 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge – cum – Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru against petitioners 2 to 6 only. The learned Magistrate shall endeavour the expedite trial against the 1st petitioner and at any rate dispose the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

#13. Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed in-part. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Dated 28.03.2025 KGM ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N //7// CRLP.No.6557 of 2021 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N CRIMINAL PETITION No.6557 of 2021 Dated 28.03.2025 KGM