Criminal Petition No. 9635 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in
Provisions considered
Judgment
1 This is a petition filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.206 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the XIII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of IPC and under sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2 The brief averments are that the marriage between the second respondent and the petitioner herein was celebrated on 16.11.1989. But, however, they lived together for a period of 45 days on account of incompatibility and the wife i.e. second respondent herein left the company of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner is harassing her for additional dowry. In those circumstances, she gave a report and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.266 of 2001 on the file of Women P.S.DD, Hyderabad and after investigation the police concerned filed the charge sheet which was taken on file as C.C.No.206 of 2005 by the court below. As stated supra, the same is questioned in this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3 Despite the fact that notices are sent, they could not be served on the second respondent for the reason that she is not in India.
4 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. P. Radhika submitted that in view of the compatibility between the spouses, they approached the Family Court and filed O.P.181 of 2001 under section 13(b) of Hindu Marriage Act to get the marriage dissolved on account of mutual consent and in the said petition the wife had categorically admitted that she undertakes to withdraw the case in Cr.No.266 of 2001 on the file of the Women P.S., CCS, Hyderabad on receipt of the entire amount which has to be paid to her. Despite the said undertaking, as the second respondent failed to withdraw the said case, the police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.206 of 2005. In this connection she has drawn my attention to the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Hyderabad dated
Operative part
08.03.2002and also the petition filed in the said O.P. In the said petition it is stated as follows:
The petitioners submit that due to serious differences, they are living separately since 17.6.2000 and the child is in the custody of the petitioner No.1. Inspite of efforts by elders and well-wishers, the petitioners could not reconcile and live together. The marriage between the petitioners has broken down irretrievably and it is not possible for the petitioners to continue their marital tie. Hence, they have decided to have their marriage dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. It is mutually agreed by the petitioners that the child Ria, who is in the custody of the petitioner No.1 herein shall b in the permanent custody of the Petitioner No.1. The Petitioner No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) to the petitioner No.1 as full and final settlement of all claims in respect of herself and the child of the parties. Out of the said amount of Rs.5 lakhs, the petitioner No.2 has paid a sum of Rs.1. lakh on this day by way of D.D.No.000579 dated 20.6.2001. For the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs, the petitioner No.2 has issued post dated cheques for Rs.2 lakhs each dated 30.8.01 and 30.10.01 of HDFC Bank, SR Nagar Branch. (Cheque Nos. 034671 and 034672 respectively). The petitioner No.2 agrees and undertakes to withdraw the case in Cr.No.266 of 2001 of W.P.S. CCS, Hyderabad on receipt of the entire balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs as stated above.
6 From a perusal of the above said contents, it is clear that the wife had agreed to withdraw the complaint given against the petitioner. But she had not withdrawn the said complaint and as such the police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 7 Now that the marriage between the spouses is dissolved and they are living separately and the wife is living in USA, this court is of the view that the said proceedings need not be continued. 8 Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.206 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the XIII Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 406 and 420 of IPC and under sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed. ----------------- Sri T.G.K, J. 18.01.2011 Kvsn
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 4, 6; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 13(b).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.