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-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

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 and respondent No.2 obtained a decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in F.C.O.P. No. 686 of 2022. As per the terms of the MoU, petitioner No.1 undertook to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent No.2 on the date of compromise or quashment of Calendar Case No. 2573 of 2021. However, despite this agreed arrangement, respondent No.2, for reasons best known to her, did not appear or cooperate for the purpose of quashing the said proceedings. Consequently, the present 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 upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Others, (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 299, wherein the Apex Court considered similar circumstances and quashed the criminal proceedings in view of a settlement between the parties. Learned counsel further submits that although respondent No.2 has entered appearance through her counsel upon service of notice, she has not actively pursued the matter thereafter. In light of the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel 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 mutual settlement is evident from the dismissal of the DVC proceedings and the decree of mutual 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. Nonetheless, 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-law of respondent No.2/de facto complainant), while petitioner Nos. 4 and 5/accused Nos. 4 and 5 are his brother and sister (brother-in-law 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 harmoniously for about one month. Subsequently, 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 subjec