C. Lokesh Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1655 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1655 Tel
Judgement Date : 23 April, 2024

Telangana High Court

C. Lokesh Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.5107 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 3, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in

C.C.No.9410 of 2022 on the file I Additional Junior Civil Judge-

Cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy

District at Kukatpally, registered for the offences punishable

under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 2, 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that accused No.1 got

married to respondent No.2 and at the time of marriage, dowry of

Rs.10,00,000/- cash, Rs.2,00,000/- adapadchukatnam, 20 tolas

of gold and pooja silver articles, were given. It is stated that

accused No.1 along with his parents used to harass respondent

No.2 mentally and physically for want of additional dowry and

forced her to give mutual divorce. Based on the complaint, a case

was registered vide Crime No.74 of 2022 by the Chandanagar

Police, Cyberabad and after completion of investigation, charge

sheet was filed vide C.C.No.9410 of 2022 on the file of I

SKS,J

Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-IX Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

3. Heard Sri N.Hari Nadh, learned Counsel for the

Petitioners and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there

is no such allegation against the petitioners to attract any of the

offences alleged. He further submitted that respondent No.2

expressed her willingness to get the matter compromised before

the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru. In this regard,

he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramesh

Chander vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another 1 and prayed

to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings

against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

for respondent No.1-State opposed the submissions of the

learned counsel for the petitioners and prayed to dismiss the

Criminal Petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions of both the

counsel, this Court has perused the entire material available on

(2019) 16 SCC 780

SKS,J

record. In case of Ramesh Chander (Supra) at paragraph No.4 it

is held as under:

"4. We have read and considered the MoU. The said MoU contemplates payment of a sum of Rs.60 lakhs and handing over of certain immovable properties (two flats) to Respondent 2. There is no dispute that the aforesaid amount of Rs.60 lakhs and the immovable properties have been parted with. We do not find any term in the MoU which relates to divorce. In these circumstances, as the terms of the MoU have been complied with by the appellant and divorce is not a part thereof, the High Court, according to us, fell into error in refusing to quash the impugned criminal proceedings against the appellant."

7. Admittedly, respondent No.2 compromised for mutual

divorce before learned IV Additional Principal Judge, Family

Court, Bangalore and expressed her willingness to close the

criminal case filed under Section 498-A of IPC. It is pertinent to

note that after thoroughly examining respondent No.2 about her

willingness for compromise in the presence of accused No.2, the

learned IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore,

granted a decree of divorce. As such, the averments of the case

do not constitute any offence under Sections 498-A of IPC and

Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the

proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 are liable

to be quashed.