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. 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 not inclined to appear before this Court, either physically or virtually. However, the petitioners are entitled to seek quashment of the proceedings on the ground that the parties have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent in O.P.No.308 of 2014 and are now living happily. In such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who are the husband and sister-in-law of Respondent No.2 is a clear abuse of the process of law. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shlok Bhardwaj Vs. Runika Bhardwaj and others , Crl. Appeal No. 741 of 2009 dated 10.12.2014 and Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao v. Madduri Sunanda and others , Crl. Appeal No. 1802-1803/2013 dated 30.07.2025. 9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, fairly submits that since the parties have already obtained a decree of divorce by mutual consent, and have subsequently remarried and are living together happily, continuation of the proceedings is a clear abuse of the process of law. 10. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material on record. 10. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized as per Hindu customs and rites on 07.03.1999. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them, and respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2, who are her husband and sister-in-law, respectively. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.313 of 2014. Subsequent to lodging the complaint, respondent No.2 filed O.P.No.308 of 2014 on 21.02.2014, seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. When the above cases are pending, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 entered into MOFC on 19.03.2018. Pursuant to the said compromise, both parties filed I.A.No.400 of 2018 in O.P.No.308 of 2014, seeking conversion of the petition to Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for mutual consent divorce. The said application was allowed on 07.04.2018, and the learned Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, accordingly granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent, by dissolving the marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2. 11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 performed re-marriage and they are living happily. The record further reveals that respondent No.2 and accused No.1 filed IA.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 including the joint memo to compound the offences and to record the compromise. However, the parties were not present for the identification. 12. In Shlok Bhardwaj's case (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence and interference with an acquittal is warranted only if the order is perverse. In the present case, the High Court erred in substituting its own view for that of the Magistrate by treating certain demands for documents and papers relating to house property as harassment or cruelty. The Magistrate had found the respondent wife's allegations not believable, noting that the documents were merely guidelines for conduct, there was no dowry demand at the time of marriage, and the alleged demands were unsubstantiated. Further, the criminal complaint was a counterblast to the divorce petition, and the wife had provided contradictory statements regarding the place of the alleged demand. Consequently, the acquittal was not perverse, and the High Court's interference in revisiting the evidence was unwarranted. 13. Further, the criminal complaint was a counterblast to the divorce petition, and the wife had provided contradictory statements regarding the place of the alleged demand. Consequently, the acquittal was not perverse, and the High Court's interference in revisiting the evidence was unwarranted. 13. In Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao's case (supra 2) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 494 and 498A IPC and a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, after noting that the parties had divorced long ago and subsequently entered into a full and final compromise before the Lok Adalat. Relying on Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana , (2025) 3 SCC 735 , Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand , Crl. No. 1684/2024, dated 19.03.2024 , Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi , SLP (Crl.) No. 9178/2018, dated 01.04.2024 and Ramawatar v. State of M.P. (2022) 13 SCC 635 the Court reiterated that when matrimonial disputes have been amicably settled and no useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution, the Court may invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. It was held that the continuation of criminal proceedings after genuine settlement would amount to harassment and abuse of process of law. 14. In the present case, the matrimonial disputes between the parties has already been amicably settled, and a decree of divorce by mutual consent has been granted. Both parties have moved joint applications to compound the offences and record the compromise. In view of the principles laid down in Shlok Bhardwaj's case (supra 1) and Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao's case (supra 2), when the parties have voluntarily resolved all their differences and are leading their separate lives peacefully, continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would amount to harassment and abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above judgments squarely applies to the facts of the present case and this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners are clear abuse of process of law. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the proceedings in C.C.No.313 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby quashed. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the proceedings in C.C.No.313 of 2024 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby quashed. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. By virtue of allowing the criminal petitions, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 in Criminal Petition No.1317 of 2019 are closed.