The High Court · 2025

The State o-f Telangana, Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad through P. S. Kothagudem-l Town Bommidi Swetha, D/o. Sammaiah aged 32 yelars Occ. Employee R/o. euarter No MD 42, Peon Basti, Kothagudem, Badabri-Kothagudem District ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT 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 CC.No. 2573 ot 2021 on the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First class of Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District against the petitioners / Al to A5 for the offence punishable U/s. 49gA and Section 3 and 4 of D. P Act l.A. NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that ir the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,lhe High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of proceedings in C.C. No ',157 3 of 2021 on the file lAddl Judicial Magistrate of I class, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District pending disposal of marn crimrnal petition This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the argumerrts of Sri L HARISH ,Advocate for the Petitioner and [Vl r V Jithender Rao Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1. and nore appear for the Respondent No2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2311 oF 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the CrPC'), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 2573 of 2021 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District.

2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 in the Calendar Case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-4 of the lndian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry prohibition Act,

3. I have heard Mr.L.Harish, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional public prosecutor, representing respondent No.'1-State. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 were amicably resolved, culminating in the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 on 10.10.2023 Pursuant to this settlement, respondent No.2 withdrew D.V.C. No. 90 of 2022, and both petitioner No.1 "..,.1 2 ,\rR,rr (,r P.\,r ))tl oJ 2021 and respondent No.2 obtained a decree of dissolution of nrarriage by mutual consent in F.C.O.P. No. 686 of 2022. As per the :erms of the MoU, petitioner No.1 undertook to pay an amount of Rs.2,00, 100/- to respondent No.2 on the date of compromise or quashment of Caler,dar Case No. 2573 of 2021. However, despite this agreed arrangement, rerspondent No.2, for reasons best known to her, did not appear or cooperat€, .br the purpose of quashing the said proceedings. Consequently, the presell petition has been filed seeking quashment of Calendar Case No. 2573 of 2021 on the basis of the prior settlement between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied up,tn the ludgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ruchi Aganual v. Amit l<'umar Agrawal and Ofhers, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 299, wherein the Apex Court considered similar circumstances and quashed the crim nal proceedings in view of a settlement between the parties. Learned coursel further submits that although respondent No.2 has entered appearance through her counsel upon service of notice, she has not actively pursued the rnirtter thereafter. ln light of the above facts and circumstances, learned ccunsel prays for quashing of the proceedings in the interest of justice. 5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not dispute the existence of the MoU between petitioner No..1/accused No. 1 and respondent No.2/de facto complainant. He fairly submits that the m rtual setflement is evident from the dismissal of the DVC proceedings and the decree of mutual 3 \ 1l(./ Cri.P.\o.2)/ / oi 202+ l lI i I i I I consent divorce, both of which reflect that the parties have arrived at a compromise. However, he notes that the agreed payment of Rs.2,00,000/_ has admittedly not been complied with thus far. Nonetheress, he leaves it to the discretion of the Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. I have perused the materials on record 7 . Admittedly, petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 is the husband of respondent No.2/de facto complainant. petitioner Nos. 2 and 3/accused Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents (parents-in-raw of respondent No.2/de facto complainant), while petitioner Nos. 4 and S/accused Nos. 4 and 5 are his brother and sister (brother-in-raw and sister-in-law of respondent No.2/ de facto complainant), respectively. During the course of investigation, the prosecution examined eight witnesses. Notably, the statement of the de facto complainant revealed that, following their marriage, she and accused No.1 initially resided with accused Nos.2 and 3 for approximately ten days. Thereafter, the couple shifted to Hyderabad, where they lived together harmonibusly for about one month. Subsequenfly, however, accused No- 1 allegedly began returning home in an intoxicated state, harassing the complainant by demanding body massages, physically assaulting her with a belt, and subjecting her to abnormal sexual demands. The complainant further alleged that accused No.1 had various vices and .frequently quarreled with her over trivial matters. \- tq-!= 4 .\ 711. / (.r'l'\,,. lll I of 202-1

8. According to the complainant, her parents-in-la w/accused Nos.2 and 3 supported accused No.1's behavior and joined in nraking demands for additional dowry in the amount of Rs.5,00,000!, claimrng that the dowry provided at the time of marriage was inadequate. They allogedly threatened the de facto complainant, insisting her to comply with their son s wishes. lt is further stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 pressed lcr a divorce and expressed their intent to have petitioner No.1 remarriel. The matter was reportedly brought before family elders, upon whose advice the accused gave assurances to treat the complainant well. Despiter such assurances, the alleged harassment continued, ultimately leading to the de facto complainant being expelled from the matrimonial home. L Additionally, in the protest petition filed before the learned t\/agistrate, the de facto complainant alleged that accused Nos. I and 5 were also involved in the offences. She stated that all accused attempted to kill her and that petitioners Nos 4 and 5 instigated petitioner No'1 to ciemand additional dowry. However, the record indicates that petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 reside in Siddipet, while petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 resider separately in Seethaphalmandi, Hyderabad, and Medak, respectively These petitioners are thus not cohabiting with petitioner No.1 and the de facto complainant- Moreover, the allegations against petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are general in nature, lacking specific detarls or supporting material evtdence. q' 5 \rR./ (.ri.l'..\a. l) I I ol 1021 '10. Be that as it may, the petitioners have placed reliance on a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between petitioner No.1/accused No. 1 and respondent No.2/de facto complainant. ln F.C.O.P. No. 686 of 2022, the learned Judge, Additional Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, specifically recorded at Paragraph No.13 that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 had amicably resolved all disputes arising out of the marriage, as evidenced by the said Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit P-5). Likewise, as per the prosecution's own case, the Domestic Violence Case (DVC) proceedings were dismissed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties.

11. ln the present petition, although respondent No.2 was duly served with notice and has entered appearance through her counsel, she has not taken any further steps to prosecute the matter.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Ruchi Aganual v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others (supra), while considering a factually similar scenario, considered that thb parties had obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent and that the complainant had also withdrawn proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. While the complainant in that case contended that she had not received her rightful maintenance and Stridhan as per the terms of the compromise, and thus sought to continue with the criminal proceedings, the Court held that her conduct having already consented to a divorce and partially acted upon the compromise indicated that the continuation of .-- \ \r ,.--.it 6 (.ri.P.\0. ?)l I .\ ilt,i )0)J 't1 criminal proceedings was intended only to harass the respondents ln such circumstances, the court observed that permitting ther proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law and accordingly quashed all proceedings arising out of the said crime'

13. ln the present case, respondent No 2 has accepted the terms of the Memorandum of understanding, obtained a decree of (livorce by mutual consent, and the Domestic Violence case proceedings; have also been setfled and closed on the basrs of compromise. Further respondent No 2 as part of the had agreed to withdraw Calendar Case No 2573 of settlement. However, despite entering into such an understanding' she has chosen not to actively participate in the present petition' thereby remaintng aloof. This conduct suggests that although the issues between the parties have been amicably settled' respondent No 2 is withholcling her end of the "l1t21 com promlse

14.lnviewoftheoverallcircumstancesandinlight:ltheunderstanding recorded in the lvlemorandum of Understanding' the continued prosecution of Calendar Case No. 2573 of 2021 is deemed to 3e an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the quashment of all further proceedings in the said Calendar Case is found to be justified However' b meet the ends of justice and in accordance with the terms of the compromise' directing the petitionerNo.l/accusedNo'ltodeposittheagreedancruntbeforethetrial Court is found ProPer 7 \ /R./ (t i. l'..\u. ) ) t I,,1 ){)1 I

15. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No. 2573 of 2021, pending on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magrstrate of First Class, Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, are hereby quashed as against petitioners/accused Nos. 'l to 5, subject to petitioner No.1 depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,0001 in the form of FDR in the name of respondent No.2, in connection with C.C. No 2573 of 2021 . Respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to claim the said amount through the Court below, upon filing an appropriate application. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (/ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class of Kothagudem' Bhadradri Kothagudem District

2.TheStationHouseOfficer'PoliceStationKothagudem,Town-1'Bhadradri L HARISH Advocate IOPUC] PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OPUC] District

3. One CC to SRI 4. Two CC to SRI Two CD CoPies ?tr AG/PSL I /,, t tt :; ,1 i(: o( o a- 06 l\l01i XEI \-a ( SniJC'r€O HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 ORDER CRLP.No.2311 of 2024 CRLP IS ALLOWED (+, (P- I rt) t) L