N. Vedaprakash , M. Veda Prakash (A1) v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.P.M.P.No.853 of 2015 in Crl.P.No.14669 of 2014 and Criminal Petition No. 14669 of 2014 COMMON ORDER:

The de-facto complainant and her counsel Sri C.Sai Vishnu are present. Accused No.1 is absent and he is represented by his younger brother and GPA holder Sri Jayaprakash Namsani and his counsel Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad are present. Heard both sides.

The police of Cyberabad laid charge sheet against A1 to A5 in Cr.No.997 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally accepted the charge sheet and registered a case in C.C.No.84 of 2011. When A1 was absent NBW was issued against him and case was split up and renumbered as C.C.No.1210 of 2014. The case against A2 to A5 was ended in acquittal as per judgment dated 27.08.2014 after full-fledged trial. While so, in Crl.P.No.312 of 2015 dated 09.02.2015, this Court recalled the NBW issued against A1 to enable the parties to compound the offence and record the compromise and now submission of the parties is that at the intervention of elders both the parties have amicably settled the disputes and de-facto complainant and A1 obtained divorce in FCOP No.170 of 2014 from the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal and maintenance claim of the

de-facto complainant is concerned, A1 paid an amount of Rs.8,75,000/- and having regard to this amicable settlement de-facto complainant has no objection for quashment of proceedings. Therefore, parties may be permitted to compound the offence and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1210 of 2014 in the interest of justice.

Having regard to the above said submission and considering the fact that it is a matrimonial matter and no useful purpose will be served even if the parties are driven to the trial, and following the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303) this petition is allowed and permission is accorded to compound the offence and compromise is recorded in terms of joint memo and consequently the proceedings in C.C.No.1210 of 2014 (C.C.No.84/2011) on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally are hereby quashed.

In the result, both the petitions are accordingly allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 18.02.2015 Murthy