T. Ram Prasad v. The State Of Telangana

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI of and .

Nos .

.I and Crl.P.No.12759 of 2018 COMMON ORDER The criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.235 of 2013 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the petitioners/A1 to A5.

2.

I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 are filed under Sections 320(6) and 320(2) of Cr.P.C., by both parties seeking leave of this Court to compound the offences and to record compromise as the matter was settled out of the Court due to intervention of the elders. Along with the affidavits, they filed a joint memo of compromise stating that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant has agreed to withdraw the aforesaid C.C., and DVC No.6 of 2015 pending on the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally; that as their marriage got dissolved by the II Additional Family Court, Kukatpally, in O.P.No.779 of 2015, both parties have agreed not to challenge the same in future; and that the 1st petitioner/A1 also agreed to give custody of the child to the 2nd respondent-mother and he shall not claim custody of the child in future or visiting rights. He also agreed to give a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards permanent alimony as full and final settlement to the de facto complainant and their son Master Shashank and out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- would

be paid by him at the time of closure of the criminal petition and the balance amount of Rs.4,00,000/-would be paid by him at the time of withdrawal of DVC case. They also agreed that they will not file any civil or criminal cases against each other in future. 3.

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the first respondent/de-facto complainant and the petitioner/accused are present and they are identified by their respective counsel. When this Court enquired the parties, the de-facto complainant and the accused stated that they entered into compromise due to intervention of the elders.

4. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, I find that it is a fit case to grant leave to the parties to compound the offences and to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A5.

5. In the result, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2019 are ordered. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.235 of 2013 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioners/A1 to A5. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed. _____________ G. SRI DEVI, J 16th July, 2019 sj