THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.3227 of 2008 and 4159 of 2008 The Criminal petition No.3227 of 2008 is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.73 of 2008 of Pedana Police Station. 2. The Criminal petition No.4159 of 2008 is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.283 of 2008 of Vijayawada II Town Police Station. 3. The petitioner No.1 in Criminal Petition No.3227 of 2008 is respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition No.4159 of 2008, and the respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition No.3227 of 2008 is petitioner No.1 in Criminal Petition No.4159 of 2008. 4. The crime No.73 of 2008 of Pedana Police Station was registered under Section 420 IPC against Athmuri Nancharaiah, Dande Ananth and Lakshmisetty Raghuram, on the complaint lodged by A.Naga Sridevi. Crime No.233 of 2008 on the file of Vijayawada II Town Police Station was registered on the complaint of Atmuri Nancharaiah against Atmuri Naga Sridevi, Karicherla Krishna Rao, Karicherla Baby, Karicherla Ramesh and Atchuta Nagamalleswaramma for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 5. As per the allegations made in both the complaints, it is observed that A.Naga Sridevi was married to A.Nancharaiah on 09.02.2003 at Machilipatnam and they lead happy marital life for few months and thereafter differences were cropped up between them and A.Nancharaiah used to harass his wife Viz., A.Naga Sridevi for dowry and she filed a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and the same was numbered as C.C.1316 of 2005 before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and A.Nancharaiah has filed a Hindu Marriage O.P. before the Family Court at Vijayawada, which is numbered as H.M.O.P.478 of 2007 and the A.Naga Sridevi also filed another criminal complaint under Section 406 IPC against the A.Nancharaiah and the same was registered as Crime No.37 of 2008 in Inugudurupet Police Station. While the matters were pending, at the instance of elders, both the parties settled the matter orally, wherein A.Nancharaiah agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to A.Naga Sridevi, and accordingly the said A.Nancharaiah obtained consent memo and got the case, which is pending against him, withdrawn in Hyderabad. As per the settlement before the elders, Nancharaiah agreed to pay Rs.5,12,500/- by way of cash towards full and final settlement of maintenance to A.Naga Sridevi and agreed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- in the name of their minor son before the State Bank of Hyderabad, Civil Courts Complex, Hyderabad and the entire payments were made by him to A.Naga Sridevi. Subsequently, the case was withdrawn and thereafter A. Naga Sridevi started demanding further amount of Rs.1,50,000/- stating that the amounts paid by her husband are not sufficient. Admittedly, she has received the amount as agreed and the case was withdrawn. After withdrawal of case, A.Naga Sridevi demanding the payment of further amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, the dispute in both the cases is with regard to terms of settlement and payment of the amount by A.Nancharaiah to A.Sridevi and admittedly the cases pending between them were withdrawn by filing the compromise petition. Whether the terms of compromise entered into by both parties are complied with or not is the point, that has to be ascertained during the course of investigation in both the crimes and the same cannot be decided in the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I hold that the petitioners in both the criminal petitions are not entitled for quashing of the proceedings. 6. In the result, the criminal petition Nos.3277 of 2008 and 4159 of 2008 are dismissed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRSAD, J 1st April, 2011 KSP