Between:
[HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5847 OF 2012 Dated 3-7-2014 M.Manoj Kumar.
And:
..Petitioner.
K.Harshitha and another.
…Respondents.
ORDER:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5847 OF 2012 This petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.1726 of 2010 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the alleged offence under Section 507 I.P.C.
Heard advocate for the petitioner.
He submitted that the petitioner and first respondent are husband and wife and due to some misunderstandings, there were cases between them and ultimately, the cases are settled and memorandum of compromise is also filed in Marriage O.P.No.58 of 2009 on the file of Additional Family Court, Hyderabad and compromise is also recorded and according to which, the first respondent agreed to withdraw Crime No.285 of 2009, 791 of 2009 and 764 of 2009 and all the other cases are withdrawn but this case is not withdrawn on the ground that it is not compoundable and she has to come to the court to give evidence and she is not cooperating for termination of the C.C.No.1726 of 2010 which is registered on the charge sheet filed in F.I.R. in Cr.No.791 of 2009. It is submitted that after divorce, petitioner and first respondent are living separately and after this compromise, there are no disputes between them and this Criminal Case remained pending as first respondent failed to cooperate. He further submitted that in the petition also, she received notice but she has not appeared and it shows that she is not interested in the proceedings.
I have perused the material papers filed along with quash petition. The other crime numbers which are for Sections 498-A I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were also agreed to be withdrawn. According to advocate for petitioner, those cases were withdrawn and they are not pending now.
As seen from the compromise memo, there is a specific clause for withdrawal of the criminal cases and if the law does not permit to terminate proceedings, liberty was given to file quash petition before the competent court. According to the petitioner as the first respondent has not withdrawn the case, in pursuance of the agreement, he has filed the present quash proceedings.
First respondent/de facto complainant remained exparte in spite of service of notice.
Considering the facts of the case, relationship between the parties and the decretal order and in pursuance of the compromise memo dated 11-2-2010 on the file of Additional Family Court, Hyderabad, I am of the view that it is a fit case to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1726 of 2010 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.
As a sequel to the disposal of this Criminal petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 3-7-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL PETITION No.5847 OF 2012 Dated 3-7-2014