THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.4335/2007 Date of Order: 26-08-2010 Between: 1. Nittu Srisailam and others ..Petitioners and 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.4335/2007 Oral order: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners A-1 to A-7 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam. The second respondent-defacto complainant lodged a complaint dt. 20-12-2005 with police of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station, Cyberabad. The police after due investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioners/A-1 to A-7 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. A perusal of the allegations levelled in the charge sheet would show that the marriage of A-1 with the defacto complainant was solemnised on 8-5- 2002 at Dandumailaram village; that at the time of marriage, the parents of the defacto-complainant gave Rs. 3,00,000/- cash and also Rs.1,00000/- towards expenses as dowry, after marriage the defacto complainant joined the company of A-1 at her in-law’s house; that after one month of her marriage, A-1 at the instigation of A-2 to A-7 harassed the complainant, both mentally and physically, for additional dowry; that during the wedlock they were blessed with a male child on 19-5-2005; that even after she gave birth to a male child, A-1 did not change his attitude; that on one occasion, A-1 came in drunken state and doused her in the sump water stating that he would kill her; that on another occasion, A-1 tied the pustelatadu to her neck and dragged it; that when her father and village Sarpnch Manchala Yadaiah came to her in-law’s house, her husband beat them; that on the advise of the elders, she again joined with A-1; that after some days A- 1 and his parents started harassing her; that at the instigation of her in-law A-1 tried to kill her by pouring kerosene; and that unable to bear the harassment, she lodged the complaint with the police. From a perusal of the charge sheet, it is very clear that no specific role has been attributed to petitioners 4 to 7/A-4 to A-7, except against petitioner No.1 and his parents-Petitioners 2 and 3. In view of the same, the case, in so far as petitioners 4 to 7/A-4 to A-7, is fully covered under Guideline No.1 laid down by the Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335). In view of the same, the proceedings initiated against them are liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, there was an understanding between the petitioners 1 to 3 and the first respondent-defacto complainant and pursuant to which, petitioner No.1-A- 1 executed a gift settlement deed dt. 23-1-2006 gifting the land admeasuring Ac.2- 20 guntas in various survey numbers situated in Dandumylaram village in favour of the son of the defacto-complainant and therefore, the proceedings against petitioners 1 to 3 ie., A-1 to A-3 cannot be continued. Admittedly, offence under Sec. 498-A is compoundable, and subsequent arrangement, which was arrived between the parties, cannot be taken into consideration for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3. However, the petitioners 1 to 3 are at liberty to settle the dispute through Legal Services Authority. Therefore, learned Magistrate is directed to take steps to get the matter resolved through the Lok Adalath by referring the matter to the Legal Services Authority. The criminal petition, in so far as petitioners 4 to 7/A-4 to A-7 concerned, is allowed and proceedings initiated against them in CC No.157/2007 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam are quashed. The Criminal Petition, in so far as petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 concerned, is dismissed with the above direction. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.26-8-20110 kmr