LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/madduri-gangaraju-babu-rao-vs-madduri-sunanda-others-20250730/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Madduri Gangaraju @ Babu Rao vs Madduri Sunanda & Others

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
30 July 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1802-1803 of 2013
Result
Allowed
Bench
B.V. Nagarathna, K.V. Viswanathan
Citation
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 2073 : 2025 INSC 991
Acts & Sections
CrPC Constitution IPC Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2073 : 2025 INSC 991
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.
Headnote

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 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]

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

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

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 were father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.1 respectively died during the pendency of these appeals and therefore the appeals have stood abated vis-à-vis
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →