GADIKARLA CHANIKYA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2018 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad.

(2.) A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(3.) During pendency of the Criminal Petition, respondent No.2/defacto complainant has filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 seeking to record compromise between the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 and respondent No.2/defacto complainant and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.62 of 2018. The said Compromise Petition has been duly signed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 and respondent No.2/defacto complainant and their respective counsel. Along with the petition, a Joint Memo has been filed, inter alia stating that at the intervention of elders and well wishers, both the parties have settled the matter amicably and to that effect a Matrimonial Settlement Deed dt.31.05.2019 was entered into with certain terms and conditions, wherein respondent No.2/defacto complainant agreed to withdraw all the three criminal cases, viz., DVC.No.1 of 2018, M.C.No.8 of 2018 and C.C.No.62 of 2018 and both the parties have further agreed to obtain divorce by mutual consent by filing appropriate amendment application in O.P.No.1242 of 2016 pending on the file of Additional Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed by A.1 seeking dissolution of marriage and after filing the said amendment application, the learned Additional Family Court was pleased to pass order dt.26.06.2019 granting divorce by mutual consent. As per the said Settlement Deed, petitioner No.1/A.1 paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) by way of Demand Draft towards permanent alimony to respondent No.2/defacto complainant. In view of the said settlement arrived between both the parties, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings in the above said C.C.No.62 of 2018. The said Joint Memo has been supported by the affidavit of respondent No.2/defacto complainant.