Pidathala Kiranodaya Kumar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1636 AP

  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.12179 of 2018

ORDER:

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in

C.C.No.668 of 2018 on the file of V Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate at Kurnool, for offences under Section 498-A of

Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961.

2. The defacto-complainant is the wife of the 1st

petitioner. On account of the marital disputes between the

defacto-complainant and the 1st petitioner, various litigations

including C.C.No.668 of 2018, had been initiated between them

and other family members. While the litigations were pending, a

compromise was effected between the parties under which the

defacto-complainant had agreed to withdraw the complaints

made by her against the petitioners herein in relation to

D.V.C.No.56 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate (Prohibition & Excise) at Kurnool, M.C.No.110 of

2019 on the file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.

Nagar and C.C.No.668 of 2018 (the present case). Similarly, the

1st petitioner agreed to withdraw G.W.O.P.No.59 of 2019 on the

file of Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and for

filing necessary amendments in F.C.O.P.No.133 of 2019 on the

file of Family Court, Kurnool for obtaining dissolution of

marriage by way of mutual consent. Apart from this, the 1st

petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- to the defacto-

complainant as full and final settlement of the permanent

alimony and maintenance payable to the defacto- complainant

and the daughter of the defacto-complainant and the 1st

petitioner. Apart from the above cash amount, the 1st petitioner

also agreed to execute a registered sale deed of an open plot

bearing No.121 in Sy.No.11,12/1 in L.P.No.606/1985 situated

in Sri Krishnadevaraya Nagar, Dinnadevarapadu Village,

Kurnool Mandal & District in favour of the daughter of the 1st

petitioner and the defacto-complainant.

3. In pursuance of this compromise, which was

reduced to writing and signed by the defacto-complainant and

the 1st petitioner on 16.02.2021, all the litigations except the

present case have been closed. It is also an admitted case that

the 1st petitioner had transferred a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- to the

defacto-complainant and had also executed a deed of sale in

favour of his daughter.

4. The petitioners have now approached this Court by

way of the present Criminal Petition for quashing C.C.No.668 of

2018 on the ground that no case has been made out in the

complaint and the charge-sheet and also on the ground that the

defacto-complainant after having received the money and the

registered deed of sale executed by the 1st petitioner, is refusing

to come before this Court for recording the compromise for the

purpose of quashing C.C.No.668 of 2018.

5. Sri M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners would submit that the action of the defacto-

complainant is in bad faith and has been done only for the

purposes of avoiding closure of the case and to harass to the

petitioners.

6. Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Goud, learned counsel

appearing for the 2nd respondent-defacto-complainant would

submit that the defacto-complainant had demurred in

completing the process only on account of the fact that the

petitioners while executing the deed of sale in favour of her

daughter had not handed over the original deed of sale and

under which the 1st petitioner had obtained title to the said plot.

He also submits that the defacto-complainant is apprehensive of

the cloud over the title to the property in view of the missing

link document. He would further submit that the defacto-

complainant is willing to accept an alternative site in favour of

her daughter instead of the site which has been conveyed to her

daughter.

7. Sri M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have handed

over the original link document also and are not in a position to

offer any alternative site at this stage.

8. In view of the disputed fact of whether the original

link document has been handed over to the defacto-

complainant, the 1st petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that

neither himself nor his family members have pledged the said

document anywhere and that the 1st petitioner would ensure

that his daughter enjoys the property as the absolute owner and

he would be liable for any cloud over the title.

9. It is the admitted position on both sides that there

is no impediment for closing the complainant except the

apprehension of the defacto-complainant that the missing link

document could result in the title of her daughter over the plot

being under a cloud and the possibility of a claim being made

against the said property by any third party.

10. Sri M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners would also rely upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India reported in the case of the Ruchi

Agarwal Vs. Amit Kumar Agrawal & ors1 wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, while dealing with a similar situations

had held that it would be appropriate that the said complaint is

quashed on the basis of the agreement arrived at between the

parties.

11. In these circumstances, this Court deems it

appropriate to dispose of this Criminal Petition quashing

C.C.No.668 of 2018 on the file of V Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Kurnool District, against the petitioners with a

rider that the 1st petitioner shall indemnify any loss suffered by

the daughter of the defacto-complainant in relation to the plot

which has been transferred to her. The said loss arising out of

any defect in the title to the plot or on account of the any claim

2005 3 SCC 299

being raised by any person on the basis of the missing link

document.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

23.03.2023 BSM

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12179 of 2018

23-03-2023

BSM