Telangana High Court
Sri. Morthala Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 16 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2741 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.5216 of 2022 on the file of III Additional
Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, at Warangal (Old C.C.No.465 of 2021), wherein, the
petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 for the offences
punishable under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961 (for short 'DP Act').
2. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that pursuant to the
order dated 15.04.2025, learned counsel has sent fresh personal
notice to respondent No.2 through RPAD and filed proof of service
vide U.S.R.No.57555 of 2025, dated 19.06.2025 and respondent
No.2 has received the said notice. Inspite of service of notice,
respondent No.2 has not chosen to enter appearance. It appears that
respondent No.2 is not interested in prosecuting the matter.
Therefore, this Court has no option except to proceed with the
matter on merits.
3. Heard Mr. P. Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that basing
upon the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, Crime No.15 of
2020 was registered on the file of Warangal Rural Police station
against the petitioners for the offences punishable under section
498-A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. The
Investigating Officer, without conducting a proper investigation
filed final report and the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Warangal, took cognizance and issued summons to
the petitioners in C.C.No.465 of 2021.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that during the pendency
of this Criminal Petition, Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 filed
O.P.No.340 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional Family Court-
cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,
seeking a decree of divorce for dissolution of marriage solemnized
between petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2 on
12.02.2016, invoking Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. During the pendency of the said O.P., with the intervention
of parents, elders, and well-wishers, both parties amicably resolved
their disputes and entered into a settlement. In view of the said
settlement, both parties jointly filed an application seeking
conversion of the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) to a petition
under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for
dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The learned Family
Court, by order dated 20.11.2023, allowed O.P.No.340 of 2022 and
granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent by dissolving the
marriage between petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent
No.2, solemnized on 12.02.2016. In terms of the settlement,
petitioner No.1/accused No.1 has paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to respondent No.2 towards full and final
settlement. Hence, continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.5216 of
2022, pending before the learned Magistrate, against the
petitioners, who are husband of respondent No.2, mother, sisters
and brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1 is clear abuse of process
of law.
6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shlok Bhardwaj v.
Runika Bharadwaj and others 1.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor fairly submits that in
view of the settlement between respondent No.2/de-facto
complainant and petitioner No.1/accused No.1 in O.P.No.340 of
2022 on the file of the Family Court, continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law.
8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available on
record, it reveals that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are
husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on
12.02.2016. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the
petitioners, who are husband of respondent No.2, mother, sisters
and brother-in-law of the petitioner No.1, basing on the said
complaint, Crime No.15 of 2020 was registered. The Investigating
(2015) 2 SCC 721
Officer, after conducting the investigation, filed charge sheet
before the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Warangal. The said Court took cognizance of the matter and
numbered the case as C.C.No.465 of 2021. The petitioners have
approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Petition
seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.465 of 2021.
During the pendency of the present petition, C.C.No.465 of 2021
was transferred to the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil
Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Warangal, and re-numbered as C.C. No.5216 of 2022.
9. The record further discloses that during the pendency of this
criminal petition, petitioner No.1 filed O.P.No.340 of 2022 on the
file of the I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, against respondent No.2,
invoking the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage
between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. Subsequently, in the
said O.P., petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 entered into a
settlement and jointly filed an application seeking conversion of
the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) to a petition under Section 13-
B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for dissolution of marriage by
mutual consent. Basing on a joint compromise memo submitted by
both parties, the learned I Additional Family Court granted a
decree of divorce by mutual consent on 20.11.2023.
10. It is pertinent to mention that in Shlok Bhardwaj's case
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that once the
matter was settled between the parties and the said settlement was
given effect to in the form of divorce by mutual consent, the
continuation of criminal proceedings is abuse of process of law.
However, in the case on hand, the parties obtained decree of
divorce by way of mutual consent. Even according to the learned
counsel for the petitioners, petitioner No.1 had paid the permanent
alimony amount to respondent No.2 in terms of the settlement, and
the decree passed by the Family Court has attained finality.
11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
view that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners in
C.C.No. 5216 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil
Judge-cum-III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Warangal, is clearly an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the said
proceedings are liable to be quashed, and accordingly quashed.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
16.09.2025
Note: Issue CC in a week
b/o
vsl
