Telangana High Court

S.Shakunthala 3 Others vs State Of Telangana, Rep By P.P ... on 18 February, 2022

Bench: G.Radha Rani

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.5897 of 2017
ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.103 of 2014 on

the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal, registered

against them for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, as per the

Award dated 19.10.2015 of the Lok Adalat passed in LA Case No.84

of 2015 by the Lok Adalat Bench at Gadwal as per the compromise

memo.

2. The case of the petitioners was that the petitioners No.1 and 2

were the parents-in-law, the petitioner No.3 was the brother-in-law and

the petitioner No.4 was the sister-in-law of the de facto complainant-

respondent No.2. The marriage of the de facto complainant and the

younger son of petitioners No.1 and 2, by name, S. Prasad, was

solemnized on 11.08.2001 as per the Hindu rites and rituals in the

presence of both the family elders at Gadwal. They were blessed with

a son. Unfortunately, the husband of the de facto complainant died on

02.12.2004 in a road accident at Palamakula. Since then, the de facto

complainant was residing with her parents at Gadwal along with her

son. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Gadwal

police on 23.08.2013 alleging that the petitioners were subjecting her to

cruelty. Basing on the said complaint, Gadwal Town Police registered

a case in Crime No.159 of 2013 under Section 498-A IPC and after Dr.GRR,J

completing the investigation, filed charge sheet and the same was

numbered as CC No.103 of 2014. The de facto complainant also filed

another case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal vide DVC

No.8 of 2014 against the petitioners. She also filed O.S. No.33 of 2010

before the II Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar for partition of

suit schedule lands.

3. Thereafter, both the petitioners and the de facto complainant

entered into a compromise. As per the compromise, the petitioners

No.1 and 2 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- to the de facto

complainant and her minor son for relinquishment of rights on the suit

schedule properties in O.S. No.33 of 2010 and the de facto complainant

agreed to withdraw the criminal case vide CC No.103 of 2014 and

DVC No.8 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Gadwal against the petitioners. The petitioners paid an amount of

Rs.11,00,000/- to the de facto complainant. Thereafter, the matter was

referred to the Lok Adalat Bench at Gadwal. The Lok Adalat bench

vide L.A. Case No.84 of 2015 passed an award basing on the

compromise petition filed by both the parties on 19.10.2015. After

receipt of the amount from the petitioners, the de facto complainant

failed to withdraw CC No.103 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal as per the compromise memo and

was harassing the petitioners.

Dr.GRR,J

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

5. Notice was served on the respondent No.2-de facto

complainant but she failed to appear before the Court and contest the

matter.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

compromise was bilateral and would mean mutual adjustment. Both

the petitioners and the de facto complainant entered into compromise

and filed a memo before the Lok Adalat Bench at Gadwal, basing on

which the Award was passed in Lok Adalat case No.84 of 2015

terminating all the legal proceedings by way of mutual consent. When

once the Lok Adalat Award was passed, no appeal would lie against

such Award. In the instant case the Award was passed long back in the

year 2015. The said Award became final and conclusive. The same

was binding on both the parties. The de facto complainant agreed to

withdraw the criminal case and other cases. But, thereafter failed to

comply the same as per the Lok Adalat Award, as such the criminal

case in CC No.103 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Gadwal was liable to be quashed and relied upon the

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit

Kumar Agrawal and others1 and in Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors.,

v. Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr.2.

2005 (1) SCJ 156

Crl.A.No.447 of 2013 decided on 15.03.2015.

Dr.GRR,J

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor reported to decide

the petition on merits.

8. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the de

facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police on 23.08.2013

at 8.30 PM alleging that after the death of her husband in the road

accident near Shamshabad on 02.12.2004, her parents-in-law, brother-

in-law and sister-in-law were harassing her mentally by demanding

additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. A panchayat was held in the

presence of the elders, but they did not change their attitude and

harassed her continuously. She was necked out of the house along with

her son on 04.12.2010 and since then, she was staying with her parents

at Gadwal Town. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet

against the petitioners-A1 to A4 for the offence under Section 498-A

IPC.

9. The record would also disclose that the de facto complainant

and her son filed O.S No.33 of 2010 and DVC No.8 of 2014 on the file

of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal. Both the parties filed a

Memo before the II Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar in O.S.

No.33 of 2010 stating that:

"on the advice of elders, they settled their disputes out of the Court and accordingly the defendants No.1 and 2 agreed to pay an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- (Twenty Two Lakhs rupees only) to the plaintiffs for relinquishment of rights on the suit schedule properties and out of the said settlement in the interest and welfare of the minor plaintiff No.2, the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- (Eleven lakhs rupees only) in the above case, subject to condition of the plaintiffs to vacate from the house No.1-10-140/D, Shashabgutta, Mahbubnagar within 24 hours from the date of deposit of amount of Rs.11,00,000/- in the court and the plaintiffs had to withdraw Dr.GRR,J

the criminal cases filed vide CC No.103 of 2014 and DVC No.8 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal against the defendants on the next day of depositing the said amount in the court. Till the withdrawal of the above cases, the said amount had to be kept in the Court CCD Account and the remaining amount would be paid by the defendants No.1 and 2 within 8 months of passing the Lok Adalat decree. If the plaintiffs had not abide the above terms and conditions of the defendants No.1 and 2, the plaintiffs have to forego their rights in the suit schedule property and the defendants No.1 and 2 can claim for refund of the above deposited amount from the plaintiff No.1 and in case the defendants No.1 and 2 not paid the amount within 8 months, the plaintiffs were entitled for 50% share in the suit properties."

Both the parties signed the said Memo.

10. The Award passed by the Lok Adalat bench at Gadwal in

L.A. Case No.84 of 2015 dated 19.10.2015 would disclose that DVC

No.8 of 2014 was referred to the Lok Adalat bench and the same was

compromised by recording the compromise between the parties and the

Award was passed in terms of the compromise that the petitioners (de

facto complainant herein and her son) received an amount of

Rs.11,00,000/- towards their permanent alimony and maintenance and

would not have any sort of right or interest over the property of the

respondents' (petitioners herein) family in future and relinquished all

their rights over it. The said Award was signed by both the parties and

the counsel representing them before the Members of the Lok Adalat

Bench.

11. Thus, though the compromise memo would disclose that the

petitioners agreed to pay an amount of Rs.22,00,000/- to the de facto

complainant, the FDRs are filed only for an amount of Rs.11,00,000/-

and it was not known whether the petitioners had paid the balance Dr.GRR,J

amount within 8 months as agreed by them after passing the Lok

Adalat Award. The de facto complainant did not appear before the

Court to report whether she received the balance amount or not.

12. In the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, the parties compromised the matter between them. In

Ruchi Agarwal's case (1 supra) a compromise deed was entered into

by the parties and the both the parties agreed to withdraw all the

criminal and civil complaints filed against each other. But, the wife

wrote a letter to the Family Court stating that she was withdrawing the

compromise petition as she had not received the agreed amount, but

subsequently, when her statement was recorded by the Family Court,

she withdrew the said letter and stated before the court in her statement

that she wanted a divorce and that there was no dispute in relation to

any amount pending. The court, after recording the said statement,

granted divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act

dissolving the marriage by mutual consent. The Hon'ble Apex Court

observed that:

"... basing on the compromise the appellant obtained a divorce as desired by her under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act and in partial compliance of the terms of the compromise she withdrew the criminal case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code but for reasons better known to her she did not withdraw the complaints filed by her under Sections 498- A, 323, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act..... 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 therein. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which the appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents."

Dr.GRR,J

and held that continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process of law

and dismissed the appeal and quashed the proceedings.

13. In Jitendra Raghuvanshi's case (2 supra), which was a

case under Section 498-A IPC, it was observed that:

"In our view, it is the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes, particularly, when the same are on considerable increase. Even if the offences are non- compoundable, if they relate to matrimonial disputes and the court is satisfied that the parties have settled the same amicably and without any pressure, we hold that for the purpose of securing ends of justice, Section 320 of the Code would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing of FIR, complaint or the subsequent criminal proceedings."

14. The present petition was filed to quash the proceedings in

CC No.103 of 2014 as per the Lok Adalat Award passed in LA Case

No.84 of 2015. The Lok Adalat Award would not mention about

recording of any compromise with regard to CC No.103 of 2014. It

was passed only with regard to DVC No.8 of 2014 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal. It also would not refer to

O.S. No.33 of 2010 on the file of II Additional District Judge,

Mahabubnagar. The memo filed by the parties in O.S. No.33 of 2010

would disclose that the parties agreed to pay an amount of

Rs.22,00,000/- to the de facto complainant, but deposited only an

amount of Rs.11,00,000/-. As no evidence was placed before this

Court to show that the petitioners had paid the balance amount to the