Andaluri Srikanth v. The State Of A.P

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION M.P.Nos.3083 & 3084 of 2017 IN/AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.14749 OF 2016 COMMON ORDR:

Criminal Petition No.14749 of 2016 is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.463 of 2014 on the file of the II-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

2. Criminal Petition M.P.No.3084 of 2017 is filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, Smt. Andaluri Kalyani, requesting to permit her to withdraw the non-compoundable offences i.e., Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, alleged against the petitioners.

3. Criminal Petition M.P.No.3083 of 2017 is also filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, Smt. Andaluri Kalyani, stating that with the intervention of the elders and well-wishers, the matter has been compromised and, as such, requested to record compromise and consequently to quash the proceedings against the accused. The terms of compromise have been stated in the compromise petition and the Joint Memo, dated 12.04.2017, signed and affirmed by both the parties and their respective counsel, is also filed.

4. The de facto complainant, petitioner No.1-accused No.1, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, and petitioner No.2-accused

ASN,J Crl.P. No.14749 of 2016 No.2, who is the mother of accused No.1, are present. Petitioner No.3accused No.3 is not present. The parties are identified by their respective counsel, Sri K.Sai Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S.Balamohan, learned counsel for the de facto complainant, and they have produced Photostat copies of their respective "Aadhaar Cards" in proof of their identity and also attested on the case bundle.

5. Sri K.Sai Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3, would represent that petitioner No.3 is a married lady and she could not come from Vijayawada today, though, she has signed in the compromise petition. Be that as it may, the de facto complainant has come forward to record the compromise. In fact, in paragraph 4 of the compromise petition, it is mentioned that the amount was already settled towards permanent alimony by the Lok Adalath in Case No.178 of 2016 and the de facto complainant had already received the said amount towards full and final settlement.

6. On being asked, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the petitioners report that with the intervention of the elders and wellwishers, they have compromised the matter and the terms of compromise are stated in the compromise petition, which is signed by both parties and their counsel. The parties also filed the Joint Memo, dated 12.04.2017, signed by them and their counsel.

7. Since both the parties have affirmed the terms of the compromise and request to record the compromise and to quash the proceedings, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble

ASN,J Crl.P. No.14749 of 2016 Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab1, Criminal Petition M.P. Nos.3083 & 3084 of 2017 are allowed permitting the de facto complainant to withdraw the non-compoundable offences referred to above and recording the compromise between the parties in terms of the compromise entered into by them.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, at the admission stage itself, quashing the proceedings against the accused in C.C.No.463 of 2014 on the file of the II-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. The terms of compromise entered into by the parties, shall form part of the record.

9. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition stand closed.

__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J April 26, 2017.

V V 1 2012 (10) SCC 303