SANAPALA JAGANNADHA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Criminal Petitions are filed by the husband and the relatives of the husband to quash proceedings in C.C.No.22/2002 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(2.) The petitioner in Crl.P.No.121/2003 is the accused No.1 in Cr.No.25/2000 which was registered under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The other family members filed Crl.P.No.5919/2002 since they are shown as accused Nos.2 to 4 in the said Cr.No.25/2000. The marriage of the petitioner/ husband in Crl.P.No.121/2003, was celebrated on 22-12-1996 with the 2nd respondent Dr. Aruna Sree. It is stated that the petitioner/husband is working as a Software Engineer in Atlanta of Georgia State in U.S.A. Several other details had been narrated in relation to the matrimonial problems. It is stated that the petitioner/ husband filed M.O.P.No.44/99 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty. The learned Judge by Judgment dated 16-1 -2002 granted a decree of divorce and directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards maintenance till the 2nd respondent remarries or till she gets employment. The Court also directed the petitioner/husband to pay Rs.1000/- per month towards maintenance of the minor boy. Certain other details relating to filing of C.M.A.No.467/2001 also had been referred to. During the pendency of the said Appeal it is stated that there was compromise between the parties and a compromise petition was filed in C.M.P.No.3210/2001 and this Court by order dated 5-12-2002 recorded compromise and dismissed the Appeal in terms of the compromise. It is further stated that according to the terms of compromise, a demand draft of Rs.5,20,000/- was handed over to the 2nd respondent/wife in Court in full and final settlement of permanent alimony. Several other details also had been specifically averred. It is stated that the said compromise was in fact brought to the notice of the Police, but however in stead of closing the investigation, the Police had further proceeded with the matter and laid charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.22/2002 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. It is further stated that in view of Clause 9 of the compromise decree wherein the 2nd respondent/wife had undertaken to withdraw the criminal case filed by her, it would be totally unjust to permit further proceedings to be proceeded with.

(3.) In view of the terms of the compromise, the proceedings in C.C.No.22/2002 on the file of XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed and the Criminal Petitions are allowed.