The High Court · 2025

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 Stay all further proceedings includlng appearance of the petitioner in CC. No.10903 of 2022, on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally Hyderabad, pending disposal of the criminal petition and quash the same. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing ti r Grounds of Criminal Pet tion and upon hearing the argun KRISHNA MANDAPATI Advocate for the petitioner an(l Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No1 . and no.. Respondent No2. [t4emorandum of nts of Sri BALA dditional Public appear for the The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11898 o12025 ORDER 1 . This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.10903 ot 2022, on the file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-4 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard Sri M.Bala Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1, who appeared through online as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1- State.

3. Learned petitioner's counsel has submitted that the defacto complainant and the petitioner were wife and husband and due to marital disputes, there arose many cases out of which, a Memorandum of Understanding was arrived at between the defacto complainant and the petitioner herein and as per the Memorandum pf Understanding, the petitioner herein was supposed to pay an It Amount of Rs.18,00,000/- towards full and final settlement and in pursuance of which, the defacto complainant was supposed to t 2 ErOJ lrl.P.No.11898 2025 withdraw all the cases filed against the petitioner. /\ per the said Memorandum of Understanding, the petitioner hereir nas paid the entire amount and the copies of cheques were also f .:d atong with this petition. Further, DVC No.146 o,f 2021 pending cr tlre file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Metropoli.; n Magistrate, Kukatpally and also C.C.No.10903 of 2022, pending o the file of the learned Xlll Additional Chief [\,r,letropolitan Magistrat , Hyderabad, filed under Section 498-4, have to be withdrawn t I the defacto complainant and accordingly, she has withdrawn _ ,/C.No.146 of 2021 after receivrng the said amount of Is..18,00,000/-. C.C.No.10903 of 2022 was kept pending for the rez: tns unknown. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has raid the entrre amount in pursuance of Memorandum of Understa I .iing, the case against the petitioner vide CC.No.109O3 of 2022 wa: not withdrawn by the defacto complainant and he is facing mr_ r rr hardship in attending the proceedings. He therefore prayed ,o quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional public prosecutor hzr submitted to pass appropriate orders in view of the principle laid < own in RUCHI I 3 EIDJ Crl-P.No.11894 2025 AGARWAL Vs.AMlT KUMAR AGRAWAL AND OTHERS1wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "When one party has acted on the consent ferms to lts disadvantage, the other pafty having received the benefits which she wanted, as in the present case, she cannot be allowed to backtrack on the consent terms, as it would amount to harassment of the first party. Hence, it would be an abuse of process of the Court, if criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued in such circumstances. " ) )

5. Perused the record. The Memorandum of Understanding submitted by the petitioner discloses the terms of settlement between the parties and the 2nd respondenUdefacto complainant has agreed to settle the matter for an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- and the parties agreed to withdraw the cases filed against each other and the \ ( said Memorandum of Understanding was entered subsequent to the divorce that was granted in F.C.O.P.No.406 of 2024 on 07.03.2025 and subsequently, all these disputes arose and one of the cases was withdrawn, but the present case vide C.C.No.10903 of 2022 is kept pending before the Trial Court. Since the respondent No.2/defacto com'plainant failed to comply with the terms of Memorandum of Understanding, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner t 120051 3 Srpreme Court Cases 299 4 ITDJ r1.P.No.11898 2025 ,:. herein would be abuse of process of law in light of the principle laid down in Richi Agarwal's case (cited supra).

6. In view of the discussion held above, the Crinrt ral Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/a,l rused No.1 in C.C.No.10903 of 2022, on the file of the learned Xlll lr rditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are he:r ,_.by quashed.

7. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stit d closed. Sd/. C. DEEPIKA ASSI]ITANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// I I SECTIoN oFFICER To, I Hyderabad 1 The Xlll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrat,: at Nampaily 2. One CC to SRl. BALA KRTSHNA MANDAPATI Advocirl( [OPUC] 3l Two CC to SRt. pUBLtC PROSECUTOR High court ftx re srate of 4. Two CD Copies Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] I I HIGH COURT DATED:04/1112025 -7 ORDER CRLP.No.11898 of 2025 c /: L) 16 tit 2026 ( \.,,, \'1.'z C i_ CRLP IS ALLOWED A