MUDUNURI SURYA NARAYANA RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings in Cr.P.C. No. 365/2001 on the file of the JMFC, Gangavathi. The petitioners are the accused against them a charge-sheet laid by Gangavathi Town Police Station for committing the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304, r/w 34, IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent. The second petitioner is the father of the first petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioners have indulged in acts of cruelty to extort money from the parents of the 2nd respondent towards the dowry and also attempt to kill the 2nd respondent. it is also alleged that during the marriage, dowry has been demanded and taken. There appears to be matrimonial dispute. The petition was filed in M.C. No. 17/2001 on the file of Civil Judge, Gangavathi for a divorce and by mutual consent and agreement between the parties the decree of dissolution of marriage has been granted. In the written agreement, the petitioner No. 1 undertook to pay a sum of Rs. 31 lakhs towards full and final settlement of all his answerable liabilities in favour of the 2nd respondent. It was also agreed that there shall not be any further litigation between the parties and that the compromise deed was to be produced before the Gangavathi Police and the complaint given against the petitioner is to be withdrawn. The deed of agreement was made on 24.6.2001. The police have laid a charge-sheet against the petitioners on 10.8.2001 subsequent to the agreement between the first petitioner and the 2nd respondent. In the charge-sheet the police have recorded the statements of 10 witnesses. The wound certificate of the second respondent is also produced and it relates to the incident alleged in the complaint. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the ruling of the Delhi High Court in Satish Gathwal v. State, (1999)1 Crimes 16 : 1999(1) RCR(Crl.) 59 (Delhi). In paras 10 to 12 the following observations are made :

(2.) THE proceedings in the criminal case were quashed essentially on the ground that the victim/complainant is estopped from withdrawing the undertaking and representations made in the agreement.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, I find no merit in the petition. Accordingly petition dismissed. Petition dismissed.