Mallampati Rajendra Prasad vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 5435 Tel

Telangana High Court

Mallampati Rajendra Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.8024 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.2 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.163 of 2025

on the file of the learned 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, registered for the

offences under Sections 498-A, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short

"IPC") and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry and Prohibition Act (for short

"DP Act").

2. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned

counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent

No.1-State.

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the

petitioners are facing false allegations in the hands of the de-facto

complainant and that the de-facto complainant has already obtained

consent divorce at USA which became final and after which she has

lodged the present complaint inspite of the divorce being obtained

with the accused No.1 and that the petitioners herein are accused

Nos.2 to 4 who are the in-laws of the de-facto complainant and that

ETD,J Crlp.No.8024_2025

they are the old aged parents and brother of accused No.1 who are

suffering a lot just due to the dispute between the accused No.1

and the de-facto complainant even after the divorce obtained by

them. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against them.

4. Notice on respondent No.2 was served and is represented by

a counsel, but however, the said counsel failed to submit the

arguments inspite of enough opportunity.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not disputed

the fact of obtaining consent decree by the de-facto complaint with

that of her husband/accused No.1.

6. Perused the record.

7. The record reveals the consent judgment of divorce obtained

in the State of Michigan in the 6th Circuit Court for the county of

Oakland and their decree is dated 01.10.2024. Thus, continuation

of the proceedings further after the consent decree is not proper. It

was held in Ruchi Agarwal Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Others 1,

a compromise deed was entered into between the parties, wherein

the parties agreed for withdrawal of all complaints against each

other and all the issues were settled pursuant to which marriage

2004 SCC Online SC 1418

ETD,J Crlp.No.8024_2025

was dissolved by mutual consent vide orders dated 03.03.2004, but

still case under Section 498-A has been continued. In those

circumstances, the Apex Court has held that it would be an abuse

of process of the Court if the criminal proceedings were allowed to

be continued. Therefore, the proceedings were quashed. In the

present case also, there is a consent decree of divorce between the

parties and it speaks about all the elements including permanent

alimony and of property settlement apart from several other

elements. Therefore, it is not proper to continue the proceedings

under Section 498-A in the present case.

8. In the light of the above cited decision and in view of the

above held discussion, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.163 of 2025 on the

file of the learned 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Date: 11.09.2025 ds