Kolagani Naganna Kapu Naganna v. The State Of Telangana,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.P.M.P.No.3761 of 2015 in Crl.P.No.3500 of 2015 and Criminal Petition No.3500 of 2015 COMMON ORDER:

T h e defacto complainant and her counsel Sri Govind Reddy Kontham are present. A2 and his counsel Sri K.Venumadhav are present.

On the report given by the defacto complainant, the Police of Utnoor P.S, Adilabad District registered a case in Crime No.200 of 2006 and after investigation laid charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and charge sheet was taken cognizance. Since A2 was absconding, case against him was split up and numbered as C.C.No.93 of 2009. The main case (CC No.78 of 2007) against A1 and A3 was proceeded on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Utnoor and after trial the case was ended in acquittal vide judgment dated 21.05.2009.

Now, defacto complainant and A2 and their counsel present before this Court today and submitted that on the advice of elders the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and in fact the defacto complainant and her husband-A1 have been living together and since A2 is none other than her father-in-law, defacto complainant has no objection for quashment of proceedings against him in C.C.No.93 of 2009. Hence, this Court may be pleased to permit the parties to compound the offence and consequently quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.

Having regard to the above submission and in view of the fact that it is a matrimonial matter wherein the parties have already resolved all their disputes and the main case i.e. C.C.No.78 of 2007 against A1 and A3 was ended in acquittal since the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and hence no useful purpose will

be served even if the parties are driven to trial in the present caseC.C.No.93 of 2009, and following the decision reported in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, this petition is allowed and permission is accorded to the parties to compound the offence and consequently the proceedings in C.C.No.93 of 2009 are hereby quashed in terms of joint memo filed by the parties. 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: 22.04.2015 Murthy