THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
Criminal Petition No. 15399 of 2014
ORDER:
1) Heard Sri. U. Ramanjaneyulu, learned Counsel appearing for
Petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
As there was no representation on behalf of the Respondents on
30.04.2022, the matter was directed to be listed on 02.05.2022
under the caption "for judgment". Today also there is no
representation on behalf of the Respondents.
2) The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the
investigation in Crime No. 233 of 2014 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 323, 307, 506, 498A I.P.C.;
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; and Section 3(1)(x) of
SC and ST (PoA) Act.
3) It may not be necessary for this Court to go into the merits
of the matter for the reason that subsequent to the registration of
the crime, the parties have entered into a compromise before the
Lok-Adalat and accepted the terms of the compromise. The terms
of compromise was signed by both the parties, the matter was
settled as per the terms.
4) Sri. U. Ramanjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
would submit that, pursuant to compromise arrived at between
the parties, the Respondent paid a sum of Rs.4,70,000/- [Rupees
Four Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only] out of the agreed amount of 2
Rs.5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs Only] by way of demand draft
bearing no. 747750, dated 04.09.2020, and the remaining balance
of Rs. 30,000/- [Rupees Thirty Thousand Only] was paid by way of
cash. One of the terms of the compromise being that, on receipt of
the amount, the Informant has to withdraw M.C. No. 15/2014 and
Crime No. 233 of 2014 of Dhone Town Police Station. It is said
that, the Informant also agreed to file O.P. seeking dissolution of
marriage between the parties.
5) The Counsel for the Petitioner mainly submits that, having
received the money in terms of the compromise, the Informant
went back and is not taking any steps for closure of the criminal
case. Hence, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
6) As stated, the Counsel representing the Informant did not
appear in-spite of the matter being posted 'for judgment'.
7) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, in
view of the compromise arrived at and having regard to the fact
that the Informant went back on the terms of the compromise
having signed the same before the Lok-Adalat, pleads that
continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process of law.
8) As seen from the record, both the parties entered into an
agreement and signed the same in front of their Counsel. Later the
said document was placed before the Lok-Adalat seeking
settlement of disputes between the parties in terms of the
settlement which was allowed. The Petitioner is said to have paid a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- [Rupees Five Lakhs Only] to the Respondent 3
[Rs.4,70,000/- by way of demand draft and Rs.30,000/- by way of
cash]. After receiving the same, the Informant is said to have gone
back on the terms of compromise to withdraw the criminal case or
take steps for closure of criminal case.
9) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Shamim and Ors. V.
Nahid Begum and Ors.,1 while referring to the judgment in
Ruchi Agarwal V. Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors.2 held as
under:
"...... Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
8. In view of the above said subsequent events and the conduct of the appellant, it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the criminal proceedings from which this appeal arises is allowed to continue".
10) Having regard to the above and in view of the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Shamim and Ruchi
Agarwal wherein, this practice of going back after the
compromise, has been deprecated, this Court is of the view that
continuation of investigation would be an abuse of process of law.
11) Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the
proceedings in Crime No. 233 of 2014 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 323, 307, 506, 498A I.P.C.;
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; and Section 3(1)(x) of
1 (2005) 3 SCC 302 2 (2005) 3 SCC 299 4
SC and ST (PoA) Act, on the file of Dhone Town Police Station,
Kurnool District.
12) Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 02.05.2022.
SM.
5
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
Criminal Petition No. 15399 of 2014
Date: 02.05.2022
SM.
