Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 241 (TS)

Vamsi Karthik Boyapati v. State of Telangana

2020-02-07

G.SRI DEVI

body2020
ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1400161 of 2018 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the said C.C., which was arising out of Crime No.579 of 2016 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. In the above crime, a charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner/A-1 is husband and petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A-2 and A-3 are parents-in-law of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. The marriage of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with the 1st petitioner/A-1 was performed on 02.08.2012 at KRKM Gardens, Imax Function Hall, Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant gave an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards dowry, household articles worth Rs.2,00,000/- along with gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.5,00,000/-. Both of them lived together happily for some time and thereafter, disputes arose between them and as such they left each other and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant went to U.S.A. for further studies and in the year 2016, she came back to India and lodged a complaint against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, which was registered as Crime No.579 of 2016. After investigation, police filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C.No.1400161 of 2018. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that due to intervention of elders and well wishers, the matter was settled out of Court and a Memorandum of Understanding was reduced into writing on 11.03.2018 and basing on the said Memorandum of Understanding, O.P.No.1722 of 2016 was filed seeking divorce on mutual consent and the same was decreed on 19.03.2018. It is also submitted that as the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant left India, the present criminal case has not been withdrawn. In the mean time, the 1st petitioner/A-1 has got opportunity to work abroad in U.S.A. as he is a software Engineer. Unless the criminal case is closed, the 1st petitioner/A-1 will not get opportunity to go abroad. It is also submitted that as the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant left India, the present criminal case has not been withdrawn. In the mean time, the 1st petitioner/A-1 has got opportunity to work abroad in U.S.A. as he is a software Engineer. Unless the criminal case is closed, the 1st petitioner/A-1 will not get opportunity to go abroad. He further submits that in spite of submitting the Memorandum of Understanding and the Court decree in the divorce petition, the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in the above C.C. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others, (2005) 3 SCC 299 . 4. Though notice was served on the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant in the month of March, 2019, she did not choose to appear either personally or through her Counsel. Hence, heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the material on record would show that due to intervention of elders and well wishers, the matter was settled and a Memorandum of Understanding, dated 11.03.2018 has been entered into between the parties. As per the Memorandum of Understanding the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant agreed to withdraw the criminal case registered against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 vide F.I.R.No.579 of 2016, which is pending enquiry. It shows that at the time of execution of Memorandum of Understanding, no charge sheet has been filed in the above crime. That apart, after execution of Memorandum of Understanding, the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed O.P.No.1722 of 2016 before the Judge, Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, seeking to grant divorce by mutual consent and that the marriage between the 1st petitioner/A-1 and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant was dissolved and divorce was granted vide order, dated 19.03.2018 passed in the said O.P. The said order was passed on merits as both the wife and husband reported that they voluntarily came forward to take divorce by mutual consent without any force or coercion. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 is that in spite of submitting the Memorandum of Understanding and copy of the decree, the police filed charge sheet which was taken on file as C.C.No.1400161 of 2018. 6. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, even if the proceedings are allowed to continue, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant may not support the case of the prosecution and that no useful purpose would be served in allowing the proceedings to continue in the absence of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. Hence, I am of the opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 would be an abuse of process of law. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in C.C.No.1400161 of 2018 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.