VAMSI KARTHIK BOYAPATI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1400161 of 2018 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the said C.C., which was arising out of Crime No.579 of 2016 of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad. In the above crime, a charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and Sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner/A-1 is husband and petitioner Nos.2 and 3/A-2 and A-3 are parentsin-law of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. The marriage of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with the 1st petitioner/A-1 was performed on 02.08.2012 at KRKM Gardens, Imax Function Hall, Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad, as per Hindu Rites and Customs. At the time of marriage, the parents of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant gave an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards dowry, household articles worth Rs.2,00,000/- along with gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.5,00,000/-. Both of them lived together happily for some time and thereafter, disputes arose between them and as such they left each other and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant went to U.S.A. for further studies and in the year 2016, she came back to India and lodged a complaint against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, which was registered as Crime No.579 of 2016. After investigation, police filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C.No.1400161 of 2018.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that due to intervention of elders and well wishers, the matter was settled out of Court and a Memorandum of Understanding was reduced into writing on 11.03.2018 and basing on the said Memorandum of Understanding, O.P.No.1722 of 2016 was filed seeking divorce on mutual consent and the same was decreed on 19.03.2018. It is also submitted that as the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant left India, the present criminal case has not been withdrawn. In the mean time, the 1st petitioner/A-1 has got opportunity to work abroad in U.S.A. as he is a software Engineer. Unless the criminal case is closed, the 1st petitioner/A-1 will not get opportunity to go abroad. He further submits that in spite of submitting the Memorandum of Understanding and the Court decree in the divorce petition, the police filed the charge sheet against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/ A-1 to A-3 in the above C.C. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agrawal and others, 2005 3 SCC 299.