Continuation of criminal proceedings becomes an abuse of law when matrimonial disputes are amicably resolved and the parties lead separate lives, warranting quashment.

ORDER :

1. 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.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Heard Sri Umakanth Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

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

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 07.03.1999. Subsequently, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, and respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home. On 18.07.2014, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others, based on which Crime No.784 of 2014 was registered. The Investigating Officer, without properly conducting the 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.313 of 2014. Subsequent to lodging the said complaint, respondent No.2 also filed O.P.No.308 of 2014 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce from accused No.1.

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.1 and respondent No.2/de-facto complainant entered into a Memorandum of Family Compromise (hereinafter referred to as ‘MOFC’) on 19.03.2018. Pursuant to the said MOFC, both parties filed an application, i.e., I.A.No.400 of 2018 in O.P.No.308 of 2014, seeking conversion of the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act into Section 13-B of the 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 submitted report dated 13.10.2025, stating that the parties did not appear for their identification.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that subsequent to obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 have remarried each other and are now living together happily and the parties are