The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to modify the orders dated 25.06.2015 passed in Crl.P.No. 537712015 and modify the order by deleting the order of appearance of petitioner before the trial court and execution bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C., This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. praveen Kumai Challa, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2. CRIMINAL PETITIO NO: 1317 OF 2019 Between Yeedi Srinivas Venakteswar Rao @ Vasu, Aged about 44 Years, Occ - Business, ll9 21 ,- River View Apartments, Flat No. 5, Gandhi Nagar, 4th main Road, Adayr, Chennai, Now Residing at No.44l1 , Navanithamal-Street, Saligramam, Chennai - 93 ...Petitioner/Accused No. 1 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad

2. Pallavi Nagalla, Wo. Srinivas Venakteshwar Rao @ Vasu, D/o. Krishnan Nagalla, Aged about 41 Years, Occ - Business, R|o.201, Rock View Apartments, Devarakonda, Road No. 5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C 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 C.C No. 313 ol 2014 on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (Cr.No. 784 ot 2O14 ol Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad) in so far as the Petitioner. ...Respondents l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Sectlon 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further Proceedings including appearance of petitioner in C.C No. 313 of 2014 on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Criminal petition. l.A. NO: 2OF 2019 Petition under Section 320(6) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to Compound the Offences with the Respondent No.'l herein or Accused No.1 and quash the Proceedings in C.C No. 313 of 20'14 on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (Cr.No. 784 ot 2014 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad) in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. 19 Pallavi Nagalla, Wo. Srinivas Venakteshwar Rao @ Vasu, D/o. Krishnan Nagalla, Aged about 41 Years, Occ - Business, R/o. 201, Rock View Apartments, Devarakonda, Road No. 5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ...Petitioner/Respondent No. 2 AND 1 Yeedi Srinivas Venakteswar Rao @ Vasu, Aged about 44 Years, Occ - Business, Rlo. 21, River View Apartments, Flat No. 5, Gandhi Nagar, 4th main Road, Adayr, Chennai, Now Residing at No.44l1, Navanithamal Street, Saligramam, Chennai - 93 ...RespondenUPetitioner

2. The State of Tela ngana, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad RespondenURespondent Petition under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to record the compromise and quash the Proceedings in C.C No. 313 ot 2O14 on the file of the Xlll Additional 'Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (Cr.No. 784 of 20'14 of Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad) in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Umakanth Reddy representing Sri C. Damodar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of None appeared for the Respondent No.1. The Court made the following: ORDER t THE HON'BLE S RI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO and 3 of 20 and/in CRIMINAL PETITION 77 of 2015 and l3l7 of2019 ON ORDER: These Criminal Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners, seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.313 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, wherein, the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.l and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(4), 406 and 506 rlw Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196l and Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

2. Heard Sri Umakanth Reddy, leamed counsel representing Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l.

3. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2 either in physical rnode or virtual mode. I 2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner in crl.P.No.1317 of 2019 and respondent No.2 are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 07.o3.Iggg. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, and respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home. on 19.07.2014, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others, based on which crime No.784 of 2014 was registered. The lnvestigating officer, without properly conducting thc investigation, filed the final report before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and the said Court has taken cognizance and the case was numbered as c.C.No.3l3 of 2014. Subsequent to lodging the said complaint, respondent No.2 also filed o.P.No.308 of 2014 under Section .13(t)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce from accused No.l. 5 Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency of these two criminal petitions and o.P.No.308 of 2014, at the instance of elders and well-wishers, accused No.l and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant entered into a Memorandum of Familv compromise (hereinafter referred to as 'MoFC') on 19.03.201g. Pursuant to the said MOFC, both parties filed an application, i.e., /l 3 I.A.No.400 of 2018 in o.P.No.308 of 201,4, seeking conversion of the petition under Section l3(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act into Section 13-B of thc Act, for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. The said application was allowed on 07.04.2018, and the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, accordingly allowed the O.P. and granted a decree of divorce between the parties on the same date. Thereafter, accused No.1 and Respondent No.2 jointly filed I.A.No.3 of 2019 in Crl.P.No. 1317 of 2019, along with a joint memo, requesting the Court to record the compromise. They also filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 seeking permission to compound the offences.

6. The above said applications came up for consideration before this Court on 24.09.2025, and this Court directed the accused No.1 and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant, to appear before the Secretary, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee, along with their identity cards for their identification, on or before

10.10.2025, and further directed the Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee to submit a report. Pursuant to the same, Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee sqlmitted report i i { I I I ! i : i: i, : - .' a - ;:"1::1'^.a:. r- 4 dated 13-10.2025, stating that the parties did not appear for their identification 7 - Learned counser for the petitioners submitted that subsequent to obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent, accused No.l and respondent No.2 have remarried each other and are now living together happily and the parties are not inclined to appear before this court, either physicaily or virtuaily. However, the petitioners are entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings on the ground that the parties have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in o.P.No.30g of 2014 and are now riving happiry. [n such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who are the husbarrd and sister-in-law of Respondent No.2 is a clear abuse of the process of law.

8. In support of his contention, Iearned counser reried upon the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in shrok Bhardwai V- Runika Bhardwaj and otherst and Madduri Gangaroju @ Babu Roo v- Modduri sunando andothers2. I cr.l.A.No.74l of2009, dt.l0.l2.2ol4 ' Crl.A.No. I802- 180y20t9, dr.30.07.102.j 5

9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.t, fairly submits that since the parties have already obtained a decree of divcrce by mutual consent, and have subsequently remarried and are living together happily, continuation of the proceedings is a clear abuse of the process of

10. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material on record. [t is not in dispute that the marriage between accused No.l and respondent No.2 was solemnized as per Hindu customs and rites on

07.03.1999. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them, and respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against accused Nos.l and 2, who are her husband and sister-in-law, respectively. Pursuant to the said cornplaint, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.313 of 2014. Subsequent to lodging the complaint, respondent No.2 filed O.P.No.308 of 2014 on 21.02.2014, seeking a decree of divorce under Section l3(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. When the above cases are pending, accused No.l and respondent No.2 entered into MOFC on 19.03.2018. Pursuant to the said compromise, both parties filed I.A.No.400 of 2018 in ...., r.. :.{_,.,.;;3t'..*i . ':. . ,niei-:ji:'#- , ..-.. ',". :ia, "{F* r1 6 o.P.No.308 of 20t4, seeking conversion of the petition to Section l3-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual consent divorce. The said application was allowed on 07.04.201g, and the leamed Additional Family court, Hyderabad, accordi,gly granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent, by dissolving the marriage between accused No.l and respondent No.2. I l. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, accused No.l and respondent No.2 performed re-marriage and they are living happily. The record further reveals that respondent No.2 and accused No.l filed IA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 including the joint memo to compound the offences and to record the compromise. However, the parties were not present for the identification.

12. tn Shlok Bhardwaj's case (supra r), the Hon'ble Supreme court reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction of the High court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence and interference with an acquittal is warranted only if the order is perverse. In the present case, the High court erred in substituting its own view for that of the Magistrate by treating certain demands for documents and papers relating to property as harassment or cruelty. The .house Magistrate had found the respondent wife,s allegations not 7 believable, noting that the documents were merely guidelines for conduct, there was no dowry demand at the time of marriage, and the alleged demands were unsubstantiated. Further, the criminal complaint was a counterblast to the divorce petition, and the wife had provided contradictory statements regarding the place of the alleged demand. Consequently, the acquittal was not perverse, and the High Court's interference in revisiting the evidence was unwarranted.

13. In Madduri Gongoraju @ Bobu Roo's ctse (supra 2),, the Hon'ble Supreme Coum quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 494 and 498,4. IPC and a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, after noting that the parties had divorced long ago and subsequently entered into a full and final compromise before the Lok Adalat. Relying on Doro Lokshmi Narayana v. Stste of Tetangonot, Mulo Kar v. State of Uttarokhsn/, Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhis, and Romowotar v. State of M.f the Court reiterated that when matrimonial disputes have been amicably settled and no useful purpose would be served by ' 1zozs13 scc 735 o crl..No. r 68 4/2024, dt. I 9.03.2024 ' su (crt.;No.9 r 78/20 I 8, dt.01.04.2024 o (zozz) l3 scc 635 8 continuing the prosecution, the Court may invoke Article 142 of the constitution to do complete justice. It was held that the continuation of criminal proceedings after genuine settrement wourd amount to harassment and abuse of process of law. L4' rn the present case, the matrimoniar disputes between the parties has already been amicabry settred, and a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been granted. Both parties have moved joint applications to compound the offences and record the compromise. In view of the principles laid down in Shlok Bhardwaj,s case (supra l) and Madduri Gangaraju @Babu Rao's case (supraZ),when the parties have voluntarily resolved all their differences and are leading their separate lives peacefully, continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to harassment and abuse of the process of law. r.herefore, the ratio laid down in the above judgments squarery appries to the facts of the present case and this court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners are clear abuse ofprocess of law. 15' For the-foregoing reasons, the proceedings in c.c.No.3r3 of 2024 o, the file of the learned xllr Additional chief Metropolitan \ 9 Magistrate at Hyderabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.l and 2 are hereby quashed. l6' Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. By virtue of allowing the criminal petitions, [.A.Nor.z una 3 of 2019 in criminar Petition No. I 317 of 2019 are closed. SD/- A.JAYASREE ) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ./ G //TRUE COPYII one Fair copy to the Hon'bre sri Justice J. sreenivas Rao (For His Lordships Kind perusal) SECTION OFFICER To, at Hyderabad (OUT) 1- The Xilr Additionar chief Metroporitan [Iagistrate, Hyderabad. 2. The station House officer, Banjara Hirrs iorice station, Hyderabad. 3' Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, state of relangana, High court Buildings, 4. 11 LR Copies . 6. The secretary Terangana Advocates Association, Library, High court 7 ' one cc to sri. praveen Kumar chara Advocate lopucJ 8' One CC to Sri C. Damodar Reddy AdvocatJ topucl 9. Two CD Cooies - Union of lndia r\rinistry of taw, Justice and company #:,r1:fl,"J_tBffiiary, Buildings Hyderabad DL/PSL Y # HIGH COURT OATED:16/10/2025 COMMON ORDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos: 5377 OF 2015 and 't317 of 2019 ( ;t ,l ! l ., ! rr i.C v,,) (i I 2 Etc 2P5 ''j ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITONS (+ ?)3 \1-. r-\