Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1407 (AP)

INDIGAMILLI VENKATESHWARA RAO v. State Of A. P.

2002-12-04

P.S.NARAYANA

body2002
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal procedure Code to quash the sentence imposed in CC No. 70/99 on the file of judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru for offences under Sections 324 and 498-A IPC and for such other appropriate orders. ( 2 ) THE petitioners in this Criminal Petition are identified by their Counsel Sri I. Nagesh and also a common relative of the petitioners Ms. Ratnamani. It is stated that the 2nd petitioner herein gave a complaint to police Mandapeta and Crime No,210/98 was registered by the police and subsequent thereto the same was numbered as CC No. 70/ 99 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate, Alamuru and after trial, the trial Court acquitted A2 to A4 finding them not guilty, but convicted the 1st petitioner - a1, for the offences under Sections 324 and 498-A and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 300/- for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC. , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner had paid the fine amount and as against the said judgment, the 1st petitioner had preferred Crl. A No. 294/2000 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, rajahmundry. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner (PW2 - lw2) are living together happily since about one year at Alamuru and in the said circumstances LW2 intends to withdraw the complaint against the 1 st petitioner as they had entered into a compromise and are living happily, and if the conviction is not set aside they will be put to great injustice and hardship. In the said circumstances, the present Criminal Petition is filed for the reliefs referred to supra. ( 3 ) SRI I. Nagesh, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners had submitted that inasmuch as the petitioners are living happily as husband and wife, the conviction made in CC. No. 70/99 is causing unhappiness and also mental agony to the parties in the matrimonial home. ( 3 ) SRI I. Nagesh, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners had submitted that inasmuch as the petitioners are living happily as husband and wife, the conviction made in CC. No. 70/99 is causing unhappiness and also mental agony to the parties in the matrimonial home. The learned Counsel also had submitted that this court alone can exercise the power to quash the same in view of the judgment of the division Bench in D. Chanda Papa Rao and others v. State, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl) 519 (AP ). ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that in view of the allegations made in the petition and also in view of the fact that both the husband and the wife are identified by a common relative also, in the interest of keeping the matrimonial tie between the parties, if the court is satisfied about the bona fide compromise, the sentence imposed in CC no. 70/99 on the file of Judicial First Class magistrate, Alamuru may be quashed. ( 5 ) HEARD the Counsel. ( 6 ) IN the decision referred in D. Chanda Papa Rao s case (supra), it was held that in matrimonial disputes for one reason or other if the relations between the parties are strained and the wife - de facto complainant, files a complaint under section 498-A IPC, against the husband and subsequently she realises that the complaint was filed due to some misunderstanding or the other and if she really repents and ifthe Court is satisfied that the parties have compromised their disputes and they are staying happily as wife and husband, the misunderstandings created between them have been totally wiped out and in that event, the High Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr. PC to quash the complaint filed against the petitioner- accused. The same view was expressed in sita Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 (4) Crimes 658 and also Sudesh Kumari v. State of Punjab, 1999 (1) Crimes 69. ( 7 ) COURTS are expected to make endeavour to keep up the matrimonial tie and to protect the matrimonial tie from being disrupted. If the problems in the society are carefully analysed, it is really unfortunate that in the recent times the matrimonial disputes are on the increase. ( 7 ) COURTS are expected to make endeavour to keep up the matrimonial tie and to protect the matrimonial tie from being disrupted. If the problems in the society are carefully analysed, it is really unfortunate that in the recent times the matrimonial disputes are on the increase. It is needless to say that Indian society, by and large, is more a traditional society and irrespective of the religion or caste, the society as such is interested in maintaining the matrimonial ties intact with harmony and to prevent the disruption as far as possible. In this back ground, when the spouses enter into a bona fide compromise and are interested in pulling on with the matrimonial home, in the interest of the society, such compromises between the spouses who enter into such bona fide compromise, may have to be approved by the Courts by putting a seal of approval and it is also advisable that in the fitness of things, the said offence should be made a compoundable one. ( 8 ) IN view of the decision of the Division Bench referred in D. Chanda Papa rao s case (supra), inasmuch as the fine amount was already paid, the sentence imposed in CC No. 70/99 on the file of judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru, is hereby quashed so as to enable the parties to maintain happy matrimonial tie. ( 9 ) THE Criminal Petition is ordered accordingly.