LexMADDURI GANGARAJU @ BABU RAO versus MADDURI SUNANDA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2073 : 2025 INSC 991 Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao v. Madduri Sunanda & Others (Criminal Appeal No(s). 1802-1803 of 2013) 30 July 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the criminal proceedings filed against the appellants in-laws by respondent No.1-wife subsequent to the dissolution of the marriage between her and her husband and also when both the parties had agreed for an amicable compromise to settle all disputes, ought to be quashed. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing – Constitution of India – Art.142 – Invocation of – Complaint and FIR filed against the appellants u/ss.494 and 498A, IPC by respondent No.1-wife subsequent to the dissolution of the marriage between her and her husband – Appellants sought quashing thereof, rejected by High Court – Further, in the suit filed by respondent No.1 w.r.t a gift settlement deed, both the parties had agreed for an amicable compromise to settle all disputes before Lok Adalat – Whether, the complaint and FIR against the appellants, ought to be quashed: Held: Yes – There is a decree of divorce which has attained finality and the parties have parted ways – The Complaint and FIR against the appellants was filed by respondent No.1 subsequent to the dissolution of the marriage – Furthermore, by way of the order passed by the Lok Adalat in Lok Adalat, a full and final settlement of all claims was effectuated between the parties by way of which all the differences between them have come to be resolved – Once the parties have genuinely settled all their differences amicably, the continuation of criminal proceedings between the parties serves no legitimate purpose and would only be an instance of harassment to the appellants having regard to the peculiar facts of the case – The complaint and all proceedings arising out of the said complaint made by respondent No.1, quashed – Invoking powers * Author 2074 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports u/Art.142, the FIR u/ss.494 and 498A, IPC and all other criminal proceedings commenced pursuant thereto also quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.494 and 498A. [Paras 16, 22] Case Law Cited Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana [2024] 12 SCR 559 : (2025) 3 SCC 735; Mala Kar v. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1684 of 2024 dated 19.03.2024 (“Mala Kar”); Arun Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9178 of 2018 dated 01.04.2024 (“Arun Jain”); Ramawatar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2021] 10 SCR 499 : (2022) 13 SCC 635; State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan [2019] 2 SCR 864 : (2019) 5 SCC 688; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012] 8 SCR 753 : (2012) 10 SCC 303; Naushey Ali v. State of U.P. [2025] 3 SCR 289 : (2025) 4 SCC 78 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860; Domestic Violence Act, 2005. List of Keywords Complaint and FIR filed subsequent to the dissolution of the marriage; Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Quashing; Article 142 of the Constitution of India; Settlement; Full and final settlement of all claims; Decree of divorce; Parties parted ways; Settlement between the parties; Amicable compromise to settle all the disputes; Abuse of the process of law; Disputes settled; Complaint and FIR quashed; Ends of Justice; Inherent powers. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1802-1803 of 2013 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2012 of the High Court of AP at Hyderabad in CRLP No(s). 5270 and 7262 of 2011 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: S. Wasim A. Qadri, Sr. Adv., Lakshmi Raman Singh, Tamim Qadri, Saeed Qadri, Saahil Gupta, Danish Ali, Ms. Radha Meena. [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2075 Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao v. Madduri Sunanda & Others Advs. for the Respondents: K. P. Sundar Rao, Vinay Kumar Gupta, Sumit Panwar, Wajeeh Shafiq, C. K. Rai, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Nagarathna, J. Being aggrieved by the common order dated 30.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the High Court while disposing of Criminal Petition Nos.5270 & 7262 of 2011 refused to quash the legal proceedings initiated by respondent No.1, Smt. Madduri Sunanda, against her husband, Sri Madduri Venkateswara Rao, and original appellants Nos.1 to 3. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 who
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.