Telangana High Court
CRLP/13598/2010 of G. Hemanth Raj, Vs The State of A.P. on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.PETITION Nos.11188 & 13598 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1 On the basis of a report given by Smt. H. Manju Priya, the second respondent in both the cases, a case in Cr.No.146 of 2010 was registered against her husband, father in law and mother in law by the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADACRL.PETITION Nos.11188 & 13598 of 2010COMMON ORDER:
1 On the basis of a report given by Smt. H. Manju Priya, thesecond respondent in both the cases, a case in Cr.No.146 of 2010was registered against her husband, father in law and mother inlaw by the Station House Officer, P.S. Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar,Hyderabad for the offences punishable under sections 498-A and506 of IPC and under sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation the police filed a charge sheet and the samewas numbered as C.C.No.393 of 2010 on the file of the Court ofthe III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,Hyderabad. Questioning the same, the parents in law filedCrl.P.No.11188 of 2010 and this court while ordering notice to the2[nd] respondent i.e. de facto complainant granted interim stay untilfurther orders.
2 It appears, there was a settlement between the parties andin the light of the said compromise a memorandum ofunderstanding for divorce settlement was reduced into writing. Inview of the said settlement, the husband approached this courtand filed Crl.P.No.13598 of 2010 to quash the said proceedings.
3 Today both the parties are present. When questioned thewife admitted the fact that there was a memorandum ofunderstanding according to which the marriage between thespouses shall be dissolved by mutual consent and the husband has to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-, out of which, shereceived an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- by way of D.D. She furtherstated that she has no objection if the said proceedings against thepetitioners are quashed.
4 In the light of the said settlement arrived at between theparties, and as the de facto complainant herself stated that shehas no objection if the said proceedings pending against thepetitioners are quashed these two petitions are allowed and thesaid proceedings in C.C.No.393 of 2010 on the file of the Court ofthe III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court,Nampally, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.
___________
Sri T.G.K, J.
30[th] December 2010Kvsn