HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6952 OF 2008 & 9151 OF 2009 DATE:09.06.2010 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6952 OF 2008 Between: Smt V. Padmavathi and another …….Petitioners And: State of AP., rep. by PP and another ……Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9151 OF 2009 Between: M. Venkatamma …….Petitioner And: State of AP., rep. by PP and another ……Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6952 OF 2008 & 9151 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two petitions are filed by A-2 to A-4 in C.C.No.697 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate court, Cyberabad, Lal Bahadoor Nagar and they are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A-2 is mother of A-1. A-3 is married sister of A-1. A-4 is husband of A- 3. The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is wife of A-1. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, parents of the 2nd respondent gave Rs.2,20,000/- cash, 12 tolas of gold and household articles worth Rs.30,000/- towards dowry and that marriage of the 2nd respondent with A-1 was performed by making false representation that A-1 was doing M.Sc., and was getting salary of Rs.22,000/- per month and that after three months of marriage A-1 to A-6 started harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally for getting additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents and that A-1 used to beat her for additional dowry on the instigation of A-2 to A-6. It is contended that in FIR, there is no mention about other accused instigating A-1 against the 2nd respondent. It is a matter for appreciation of evidence after the entire evidence is let in before the lower court. Allegations in FIR and in the charge sheet, copies of which are alone filed along with these petitions, on their face value disclose the offences for which the petitioners are charge sheeted. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations is a question of fact which this Court cannot go into in these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the matter is compromised between the parties and that in pursuance of the said compromise a consent divorce decree was passed. Subsequent divorce between the couple will not absolve the husband and his relations of their criminal liability with regard to the incidents which took prior to that date. If both the parties have compounded the offences then it is open to both the parties to present appropriate petitions before the lower court under Section 320 Cr.P.C and get compounding of the offences recorded by the Magistrate. In case, any of the offences are non-compoundable and in case, the Magistrate fails to record compounding in respect of non-compoundable offences, then the parties are at liberty to approach this Court for necessary relief. Relying upon Arvind Barsaul v. State of Madhya Pradesh,[1] it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the Supreme Court also took note of the compromise between the parties and quashed criminal proceedings on the ground that it is abuse of process of law. In that reported decision, the Supreme Court while exercising its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, recorded the above finding. This Court has no power to be exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is suggesting the above said procedure to be followed by both the parties. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed subject to the above observations. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:09.06.2010. GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6952 OF 2008 & 9151 OF 2009 Date:09.06.2010 Gk. [1] (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 794