In matrimonial disputes, if parties reach a genuine settlement, continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process, justifying quashing under Article 142.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

Being aggrieved by the common order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the High Court while disposing of Criminal Petition Nos.5270 & 7262 of 2011 refused to quash the legal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1, Smt. Madduri Sunanda, against her husband, Sri Madduri Venkateswara Rao, and original appellants Nos.1 to 3. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 who were father-in- law and mother-in-law of respondent No.1 respectively died during the pendency of these appeals and therefore the appeals have stood abated vis-à-vis them. Appellant No.3 is the brother-in-law of respondent No.1.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the marriage between Sri Madduri Venkateswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as “husband”, for the sake of convenience) and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 01.05.2001. Both of them moved to the United States of America on 02.10.2002. After about three years, the relationship between the husband and the wife turned sour and consequently, both parties mutually decided to seek divorce and the same was granted by the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on 15.03.2007.

3. Upon returning to India, on 05.11.2008, respondent No.1 filed a matrimonial suit being O.P. No.1298 of 2008 seeking relief of restitution of conjugal rights. She subsequently filed a police complaint on 20.11.2008 against her husband that finally culminated into Complaint Case No.991 of 2010 before the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 moved a motion before the Superior Court of California to set aside the judgment of divorce, which was dismissed on 19.01.2010. On 08.11.2010, respondent No.1 filed a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being DVC No. 30 of 2010 before the court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam alleging cruelty by the husband and the appellants herein. Thereafter, she also filed FIR No.28 of 2011 dated 18.03.2011 against the appellants at Gollaparlu Police Station, East Godavari District under Sections 494 and 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “IPC”).

4. Aggrieved by the multiple legal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1, the husband and the appellants filed Criminal Petition No.5270/2011 on 28.06.2011 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging Complaint Case No.991/2010. Furthermore, they filed Criminal Petition No.7262/2011 challenging DVC No.30/2010. The husband also filed Criminal Petition No.2851/2011 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) seeking to quash FIR No.28 of 2011.

5. The High Court clubbed the aforementioned Criminal Petition Nos.2851/2011, 5270/2011 and 7262/2011 and disposed them of by the impugned common order dated 30.03.2012. The High Court dismissed all the three criminal petitions observing that respondent No.1 and her husband had lived together before, during and after the divorce proceedings and respondent No.1 had given birth to a child during the pendency of the divorce proceedings. Hence, the High Court refused to exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned common order of the High Court, the appellants have preferred the present appeals. This Court, vide order dated 17.08.2012, issued notice to the respondents and granted stay