S SRIDHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The first petitioner-husband and the second respondent-wife appeared in person and they have admitted that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in this petition on 13.10.2003, the first petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- before the II Additional Family Court, Madras and therefore, the learned counsel for both sides have represented that necessary orders may be passed in this petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision, B.S.JOSH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER (J.T. 2003 (3) S.C. 277) and urged this Court to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the criminal proceedings pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.1401 of 2003. A careful reading of the said decision discloses that the prosecution under Section 498-A and 406 I.P.C. are non-compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and it is seen from the records of the case that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent against the petitioners herein, the first respondent registered a crime under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Cr.No.18/2002 by W-5, All Women Police Station, Anna Nagar which gave rise to the said criminal case. Since both the petitioner-husband and the second respondent-wife have filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act in H.M.O.P.No.1779 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Family Court, Madras inasmuch as the first petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- payable to the second respondent in pursuance of the terms of compromise memo filed therein, this Court is of the opinion that in the light of the ratio laid down in the said decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, the prosecution launched against the petitioners by the first respondent has to be quashed.