Prasad Singh Paradeshi and Others vs State of A.P.

T. Ranga Rao, J.—This petition is filed u/s 482 of Cr. P.C. requesting to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 391 of 1996 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

The facts in giving rise to the filing of this petitioner are, briefly, as follows:

That the first petitioner herein married the second respondent and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner and the petitioners 4, 6, 8 and 10 are the sisters-in-law of the first petitioner and the petitioner No. 5, is the husband of the petitioner No. 4, petitioner No. 7 is the husband of petitioner No. 6 and the petitioner No. 9 is husband of petitioner No. 8 and they are residents of Sholapur and A-4, A-5 and A-10 are residents of Pune of Maharashtra State.

The second respondent filed a private complaint before the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 6.5.1996 alleging that the marriage in between the second respondent and the first petitioner was celebrated on 29.12.1993 at Hyderabad spending Rs. 4,00,000/- and after giving Rs. 3,00,000/ - in cash and gold and silver ornaments, etc. Subsequently, she was ill-treated by the petitioners and the case was referred to the Police, Women Protection Cell, and the police registered a case in Cr. No. 105/96 under Sections 498-A, 307,324 r/w 34, IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and investigated into and filed charge- sheet, and the Court took the case on file u/s 498-A r/w 149, IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Now the petitioners filed this petition to quash the proceedings in the abovesaid case mainly contending that the respective families have amicably settled the matrimonial dispute which has arisen out of the said marriage. It is further submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent has to be dissolved by decree of divorce by mutual consent and accordingly they filed a petition before the Family Court at Hyderabad in O.P. No. 778/1996 for divorce. It is further submitted that permanent alimony was mutually settled and agreement was entered into in between the parties agreeing to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- to the second respondent by the first petitioner and in part performance there of, Rs. 4,00,000/-were already paid on 21.8.1996, and as the parties settled their disputes and difference, it would be an exercise in futility to continue the proceedings in this case and requested to quash the same and he relied on a decision Ravinder Krishna & Ors. v. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh & Anr. 1996 M.J. 404, wherein it is observed as under :

"...It has been stated in the present petition that after the registration of the aforesaid First Information Report, petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 have amicably settled all their matrimonial disputes and differences arising out of the said marriage and decided to dissolve their marriage by a decreeofdivorcebymutualconsentforwhichpetitionAnnexureP-1 has been filed. It is further stated that no dispute of any kind now remains to be settled between the parties and the continuation of the investigation and the consequent proceedings in respect of the First Information Report in question would amount to perpetuating injustice to the parties. It is thus prayed that the First Information Report in question and the consequent proceedings thereon may be quashed."

In the present case, all the matrimonial disputes including those contained in the First Information Report in question have been amicably settled between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and their marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce by mutual consent. Once the parties have settled their disputes and differences, it would be an exercise in futility to file the challan in the Court and to proceed with the trial. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and larger interest of justice, it is just and proper to face a trial in a criminal charge which has lost its objective. He further relied on a decision Sanjay Sanadhya & Ors. v. State & Anr. 1994 MLR 373.

The learned Counsel for the respondents admitted the contention of the petitioners that the parties have mutually agreed and settled the differences and in pursuance of the agreement, Rs. 4,00,000/ was paid towards permanent alimony and the petition was filed with mutual consent for divorce and he also conceded to the request of the petitioners to quash the proceedings as the complainant has already settled the matrimonial disputes with the accused persons.

Thus it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the settlement of dispute between the complainant and the accused persons and the petition for divorce by mutual consent was also filed and in the aforesaid circumstances, the case is unlikely to end in conviction. The Delhi High Court as well as Punjab and Haryana High Court have quashed the proceedings in similar circumstances in the decisions referred to above.

It is also significant to note here that Section 198-A of Cr. P.C. provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 498-A of IPC except on police report or on a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the offence by her father, mother, brother, sister, etc., or with the leave of the Court by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. Thus it is clear that primarily the prosecution can be launched only on the complaint given by the wife or her relatives, but not others. Thus, when the husband and wife settled their disputes amicably, including permanent alimony, and when the said offence can be prosecuted only at the instance of wife, this circumstance also justifies the quashing of the proceedings u/s 498-A of IPC.

Therefore, when no useful purpose is likely to be served by proceeding in the matter further, as the parties have settled the matter outside the Court, it is an exercise in futility and in the interest of justice and equity, it is not desirable to continue the proceedings and hence, the proceedings in C.C. No. 391/1996 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are quashed.