Mohammed Javed Ansari, , Ansari Mo Javed, v. The State Of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.P.M.P.No.1514 of 2015 in Crl.P.No.1399 of 2015 and Criminal Petition No.1399 of 2015 COMMON ORDER:

De-facto complainant and her counsel Sri Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig Nizami are present. Accused 1 to 3 and their counsel Sri Mohammed Abdul Qavi Abbasi are present. A4 and A5 are absent and they are represented by A1, who is their GPA. On the report given by defacto complainant the police of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad registered FIR.No.5 of 2014 against the accused for the offences under Section 498, 406 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and investigation is reported to be pending.

While so, both the parties represented that at the intervention of elders they have amicably settled their disputes and they have entered into Memorandum of Understanding. As per which, defacto complainant and A1 obtained divorce and the maintenance claim of defacto complainant and her minor sonMohammed Kaif Javeed Ansari are taken care of and A1 paid an amount of Rs.3 lakhs through Demand Draft bearing No.577728 dt.18.02.2015 drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited, Bowenpally Branch to defacto complainant and Rs.5 lakhs through Demand Draft bearing No.577729 dt.18.02.2015 drawn on ING Vysya Bank Limited, Bowenpally Branch to her minor son. The parties have agreed to withdraw the other pending cases at Mumbai and sofaras present case is concerned, defacto complainant has no

objection for quashment of proceedings in Cr.No.5 of 2014 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad and therefore permission may be accorded to parties to compound the offence and consequently quash the proceedings in the interests of justice. Having regard to the above submission of the parties and considering the fact that it is a matrimonial matter and the parties have amicably resolved their disputes and no useful purpose will be served if they are driven to trial, and relying upon 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 memorandum of understanding and consequently the proceedings in Cr.No.5 of 2014 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad 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: 25.02.2015 Murthy