THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.1085 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.304 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, registered for offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC vide Cr.No.130 of 2004 of Ravulapadu P.S. The petitioner is A1 and the second respondent is the defacto complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the calendar case. The prosecution case is as follows: Marriage between the defacto complainant and A1 was performed on 19.5.2002 as per Hindu Rites and Customs and at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.8,00,000/- to A1 towards dowry apart from Rs.80,000/- as ‘Adapaduchu Lanchanam’ and then her father also promised to give Ac.4-00 cents and one building (shop) to A1 and she joined her husband and both went to America as A1 was an employee working in America and they lead a happy marital life for some time, but thereafter A1 at the instigation of his family members i.e. other accused in the case started demanding more dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and to sell the property promised to be given by her parents and when both A1 and the defacto complainant came down to Vijayawada in April 2004, her in-laws and A1 started harassing her mentally and physically to bring more dowry and necked out her from the house and because there is no other option, the defacto complainant has been residing in her parent’s at Ravulapadu and on 9.5.2004 at about 11.00 a.m. her husband (A1) and in-laws came to her parent’s house at Ravulapadu and demanded to give more dowry, claiming that otherwise, the first of them would contact another marriage and when her father questioned about it, they all went upon her father and in the meanwhile, one Pechetti Chinna Rao and their neighbours Satyavathi and Suryanarayana intervened and questioned about the high handed acts of A1 and the in-laws and then the latter threatened to kill them and abused them in filthy language and went away. On a report given by the defacto complainant, the case was registered in Cr.No.130 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC on the file of Ravulapadu P.S. It is contended on behalf of A1 that there is no iota of truth in the allegations leveled against A1. In fact, the defacto complainant joined A1 immediately after the marriage and both of them lived happily for some time and later due to misunderstandings, they took mutual divorce in the month of October, 2005 and in fact the District Court at Harris County Texas passed decree of divorce indicating that the defacto complainant agreed for the terms of divorce and voluntarily affixed her signature to the final decree and having taken mutual consent divorce there, she could not have filed the present case here, which is nothing but abusing the process of law and in fact, the defacto complainant got married again on 16.6.2008. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have opposed the petition claiming that the allegations made against A1 are pertaining to the period prior to obtaining the decree of divorce, but not the subsequent period and when A1 involved in the said criminal acts against the defacto complainant, he is liable to be prosecuted and punished. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings in the calendar case are liable to be quashed or not. It is pertinent to note here that the proceedings insofar as the other accused in the case are concerned, they are quashed and admittedly they became final. There is no dispute about obtaining mutual divorce as pleaded. When once the wife settled the issue having agreed for the mutual divorce, it is not proper for her to consider the earlier aspects of the case. Further when the divorce was obtained whatever amounts were given to A1 and his parents at the time of marriage or later would have been settled. But no material is placed before the court in that context. Therefore, it appears that the plea of demand and payment of dowry and other amount or amounts is not true. Similarly there is no documentary material about the promise to give Ac.4.00 of land or house to A1. Therefore, prima facie the pleas of the defacto complainant appear to be false. In the decision cited, it is observed while considering the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. that unless prima facie case is there, no body should be prosecuted as it would amount to abusing the process of law which principle is quite applicable here. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the defacto complainant having agreed for the mutual divorce and obtained it, should not have any intention to see that A1 is convicted and punished for the alleged charge. No doubt the allegations made against A1 pertains to the period prior to 2004, whereas the mutual divorce was obtained quite subsequently. Taking into consideration the relevant circumstances of the case, it is incumbent upon both the parties to live happily without having any personal vendetta in future. In view of the decision cited supra and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to prevent abuse of the process of law, the proceedings are liable to be quashed and the defacto complainant cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in the calendar case insofar as A1 is concerned are quashed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 30-11-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.1085 of 2009 30.11.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.1085 of 2009 Date: 30th November, 2011 Between: Atluri Sreedhar .. Petitioner/A1 And The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents