HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4755 of 2​008 ORDER:- Petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 and 3 (A2 and A3) in the criminal case i.e. C.C.No.1097 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad (trial Court). They filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for quashing the proceedings against them in the said criminal case. 2. The point that therefore arises for determination in this petition is whether there are any grounds to quash the criminal case in question as against petitioners. 3. The first petitioner and the second petitioner are mother and son. There is another accused i.e. A1 D.Sudhakar Reddy in the case and he is also the son of the first petitioner. The de facto complainant D.Vijitha Reddy (second respondent herein) is the wife of that D.Sudhakar Reddy. The said case has been filed for an offence under Section 498-A of IPC. In the charge sheet a copy of which is filed in this Court A1 and A2 are reported to be staying in United State of America (USA) while A3 i.e. the second petitioner is stated to be a resident of Hyderabad. However, in this criminal petition the first petitioner (A2) is also stated to be staying in Hyderabad. 4. The admitted facts are that the marriage of the de facto complainant Vijitha Reddy and A1 was solemnized on 26.03.1978 at Hyderabad. According to the de facto complainant they lived happily for 21 years and during that period they were blessed with two daughters namely D.Swetha Reddy and D.Neeta Reddy who are now reported to be grown up and also married. 5. It is represented that some time prior to 1996, A1 left for USA and he came over to India during certain intervals. The version of the de facto complainant is that ultimately her husband i.e. A1 settled in USA and started living there with another lady by name Jennifer and totally neglected her and her children. 6. It should be noted now that after waiting for a considerable period for her husband to come back and look after her and children the de facto complainant gave a report dated 01.07.2007 in the Women Police Station of CCS, Hyderabad against him. On the allegations made therein the inspector of police of the said Women Police Station registered the said report as Crime No.214/2007 for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and investigated the case and ultimately charge sheeted these two petitioners also along with A1 in the case for an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC r/w 34 IPC. 7. It is not necessary to go into the other details. It would be sufficient to note that on 19.07.2007 a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was reached between the de facto complainant and the second petitioner D.Surender Reddy (i.e. her brother-in-law) whereunder certain properties and certain cash amounts were agreed to be given to the de facto complainant towards settlement of her claims. It is also seen that the de facto complainant and D.Surender Reddy also entered into what is called “annexure to memorandum of understanding” and this annexure is dated 29.07.2007. Copies of the said MOU and its annexure which are filed in this Court would also show that certain property and cash were also given to the de facto complainant pursuant to the MOU. In the MOU dated 19.07.2007 a mention is made about the present criminal case filed by the de facto complainant and that at the intervention of elders she settled for the terms of compromise. It is also seen that subsequently the de facto complainant gave a letter dated 19.07.2007 to the Station House Officer of the Women Police Station to the effect that as she entered into a compromise with the accused she does not intend to press the criminal case for the time being. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have paid the amounts and transferred the property as per the terms of MOU and also the annexure appended to the same and the de facto complainant received the same but failed to withdraw the criminal case in terms of the MOU and therefore the criminal case should be quashed against them. It is further pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that initially in the report dated 01.07.2007 given by the de facto complainant to the police no allegations have been made against them (petitioners herein) but subsequently she embellished her version and dragged them also into the case and consequently in view of this and the above compromise/MOU the case against them should be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the above plea of the petitioners in his arguments and in support of this contention or plea he also relied upon two decisions of our Supreme Court. The first is the one given in RUCHI AGARWAL vs. AMIT KUMAR AGRAWAL[1] and the second is MOHD. SHAMIM vs. NAHID BEGUM[2]. 9. On the other hand Sri M. Govinda Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant argued that the terms of the compromise were not acted upon fully and the husband of the de facto complainant did not turn up in India even today and consequently this court should not interfere in the matter and quash the case. 10. To appreciate the rival contentions, it would be better to set out the terms of compromise reached in the MOU dated 19.07.2007 and also its Annexure and their compliance. The terms of compromise as mentioned in the MOU dated 19.07.2007 are as follows: “(i) The accused assures that the ancestral property lying in the name of his mother shall be partitioned within the family and the property falling to the share of his brother i.e., D.Sudhakar Reddy will be transferred in the name of the complainant. (ii) A plot which is in the name of D. Sudhakar Reddy to the extent of 500 sq. yards situated at Thimnnapally village will be transferred in the name of the complainant. (iii) An amount of Rs.10,00,000-00 (Rs.Ten Lakhs only) in cash or in the form of Bankers’ cheque will be given to the complainant and two daughters by D.Sudhakar Reddy as permanent alimony. (iv) The complainant hereby assures that subject to the above terms and conditions she will withdraw the complaint lodged before the women police station and further agrees to appear before the concerned police or Court to compromise the criminal case. (v) The complainant subject to satisfaction of the terms set herein in clauses 1, 2, and 3 shall not make any further claims and this settlement shall be the full and final settlement against D.Sudhakar Reddy; D.Surender Reddy and their family members. A separate compromise deed shall be prepared and both parties agree to sign on the said deed subject to satisfaction of clauses 1, 2 and 3 above. (vi) The accused assures the complainant that he shall impress upon the D.Sudhakar Reddy the husband of the complainant to abide by the said conditions and shall prevail upon him to agree and abide by the said conditions, failing which the complainant shall have the right to continue criminal prosecution as contemplated by law.” 11. Now the relevant terms mentioned in the Annexure dated 29.07.2007 appended to the MOU dated 19.07.2007 read as follows: “Whereas the complainant herein has received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) in cash from the accused on behalf of her husband D.Sudhaker Reddy which she hereby acknowledges the receipt of the same. It is further agreed that the other conditions stipulated in the said M.O.U. dated 19-07-2007 shall be abided to by both the parties subject to the following conditions. (i) It is further agreed that the within a weeks time from today landed property admeasuring 500 sq.yds., situated at Thimaipally village will be transferred in the name of the complainant and she shall take immediate steps before women police station or the concerned court to withdraw/compound the criminal case against all the accused. The originals of the documents shall be handed over at the time of withdrawal/compounding the criminal case. (ii) It is further agreed that an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00 due to be paid to the complainant shall be paid by the accused on behalf of his brother D. Sudhakar Reddy by way demand draft/bankers cheque to be drawn on ICICI Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad and the same shall be delivered to the complainant on the filing and obtaining of decree and judgment for divorce by mutual consent by wife and husband. (iii) It is further agreed that the house property excluding common areas such as passages, staircase etc., which is for the common use of all the co-owners living in the said house property, in the name of D. Urmila Reddy agreed to be transferred in favour of the complainant will be transferred on an application for divorce by mutual consent made by the complainant and her husband in the family court and on obtaining of the decree for divorce, the property papers will be handed over to the complainant. In case the divorce is not decreed due to the refusal to divorce by the complainant, the property papers will not be handed over to her. In case D.Sudhakar Reddy refuses to divorce then the property papers shall be handed over to the complainant. (iv) It is further agreed that all cases pending as on today shall be withdrawn and both parties hereby declare that they shall not make any further claims or counterclaims against each other and shall not resort to filing criminal cases against each other.” 12. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant admitted that out of the sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs agreed to be given in condition No.3 of MOU dated 19.7.2007, a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs has been received by the de facto complainant and the balance amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs still remains to be paid. This is also mentioned in the terms of Annexure appended to the MOU. It is then stated that the plot of 500 sq. yards standing in the name of D.Sudhakar Reddy mentioned in condition No.2 of MOU dated 19.7.2007 has also been transferred in favour of the de facto complainant and this is also mentioned in the terms of Annexure appended to the MOU. 13. The contention of the petitioners is that in view of the compliance of the above two conditions the de facto complainant has to withdraw the criminal case as per the terms of the MOU and the Annexure to it but she has not withdrawn the case despite receipt of the cash of Rs.5 lakhs and also the above plot of 500 sq. yards and therefore the case should be quashed. It is difficult to accept this contention for the following reasons. 14. It should be noted here that in condition No.1 of the MOU dated 19.07.2007 it is stipulated that the ancestral property lying in the name of the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant shall be partitioned within the family and the property falling to the share of D.Sudhakar Reddy will be transferred to the de facto complainant. The grievance of the de facto complainant is that this condition is not yet complied with though this condition is also to be complied with for withdrawal of the case as stipulated in condition No.4 of the MOU dated 19.07.2007 and therefore she cannot withdraw the case. 15. The contention of the petitioners appears to be that the above condition No.1 regarding the partition of the ancestral property has been given a go bye in the Annexure dated 29.07.2007 and that the de facto complainant has to withdraw the case as per the terms of the Annexure after the receipt of cash of Rs.5 lakhs and the plot of 500 sq. yards. From the terms of the Annexure it is not clear whether it supersedes the terms of the MOU dated 19.07.2007 and this has to be decided only on evidence and that cannot be done by this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. What should be noted is that in condition No.2 and condition No.3 of the Annexure it is mentioned that the balance sum of Rs.5 lakhs shall be paid to the de facto complainant and the agreed share in the house property of the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant shall be transferred in favour of the de facto complainant only on herself and her husband applying for and getting a mutual consent decree for divorce. Thus going by the language of condition Nos.2 and 3 in the Annexure dated 19.07.2007 they only show about the timing of the payment of balance of Rs.5 lakhs and the transferring of the agreed share in the house property of the de facto complainant’s mother-in-law. 17. It should be noted here that partitioning of the ancestral property standing in the name of the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant and transferring the share in it belonging to the de facto complainant’s husband to the de facto complainant is a condition precedent for withdrawing the criminal case as per the terms of the MOU dated 19.07.2007. This is not yet done. Thus the petitioners cannot rely upon the Annexure to the MOU and argue that it supersedes the MOU itself and in fact that was the intention of the parties. However no opinion can be expressed by this Court on the above aspects as it relates to interpretation of the terms of MOU and the Annexure appended to it. That can be done only on evidence. 18. It may then be noted that the offence under Section 498-A IPC is now made compoundable in our State. Thus it shall be open for the petitioners to file an application before the trial Court or the Court before which the present criminal case is pending and pursue their remedy before that Court for recording the compromise as that Court can decide this controversy if necessary even by recording evidence. 19. In the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel the criminal cases therein were quashed on the ground that the matters were compromised and still the de facto complainants therein violated the terms of the compromise and did not withdraw the cases. That is not the situation here. The circumstances in this case raise a question whether the terms of the compromise recorded in the MOU and the Annexure appended to it have been fully complied with in order to find fault with the de facto complainant in not withdrawing the case. This aspect to repeat can be decided only by the Court before which the case is pending as held supra. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons the plea of the petitioners for quashing the criminal case on the ground of compromise has to be rejected and it is held so. 20. Regarding other ground raised by the petitioners for quashing the case, it is true that in her report dated 01.07.2007, the de facto complainant directed all the allegations made therein only against her husband who is A-1 in the case and nothing is mentioned against the petitioners herein. However in the course of investigation it appears that the de facto complainant made allegations against these two petitioners also in her statement made before the Investigating Officer which show the alleged complicity of these two petitioners in the said offence. The learned counsel for the petitioners says that this is clearly an embellishment and therefore the case against them should be quashed. It is difficult to accept this contention also. It may be noted that the FIR is not be all and end all and several other aspects which are not disclosed in the FIR may come to light during the course of investigation. The fact that some aspects which are not mentioned in the FIR have been mentioned in the Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of the de facto complainant and her witnesses may affect the credibility of the FIR. All these aspects relate to appreciation of evidence involving disputed questions of fact which have to be again adjudicated only on evidence and not in a quash petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence the second ground of the petitioner is also rejected. Thus for the aforesaid reasons the point is decided in the negative and this petition is dismissed. 21. The Court before which the case is pending is at liberty to deal with it including any application made for recording of compromise without being influenced in any manner by this order relating to the interpretation of the terms of the MOU dated 19.07.2007 and the Annexure dated 29.07.2007 appended to it. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 18th April 2011 CVRK [1] (2005) 3 SCC 299 [2] 2005 CRILJ 889