Dr. Dontham Santhosh Gandhi, v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO Crl.P.M.P.No.4192 of 2015 in Crl.P.No.3907 of 2015 and Crl.P.No.3907 of 2015 Common Order:

The de-facto complainant and her counsel S.R.Sanku are present. Accused Nos. 2 to 5 and their counsel Ms. Gayarthi are present. A.1 is absent as he is said to be working in U.K and hence he is represented by Accused No.2, who is his G.P.A. On the report given by de-facto complainant, the police of Women Police Station, Khammam, registered a case in Cr.No.81 of 2010 and after investigation laid charge sheet against Accused Nos. 1 to 5 for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 420 IPC and Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter, the charge sheet was taken on file and registered as C.C.No.24 of 2011 and it is pending on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam.

While so, today the parties and their counsel present in Court and submitted that at the intervention of elders, they have amicably settled their disputes and as per the settlement, the defacto complainant and A.1 proposed to obtain divorce and the maintenance claim of the claimant/de facto complainant is also taken care and the accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- towards maintenance amount and out of the said the amount, the complainant had already received Rs.35,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is agreed to be paid at the time of obtaining divorce and in view of the said settlement, the de facto complainant has no objection for quashing the proceedings against the accused in C.C.No.

24 of 2011 and therefore, permission may be accorded to them to compound the offence and quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.

In view of the above submission and having regard to the fact that it is a matrimonial matter wherein the parties have amicably resolved all their disputes and they want to lead peaceful and independent lives and considering the fact that no useful purpose will be served even if they are driven to trial since they have already compromised

the issue and following the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012)10 SCC 303, Crl.P.M.P.No.4191 of 2015 is allowed and permission is accorded to compound the case. Consequently, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2011 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam, Khammam District, are quashed in view of the compromise petition filed by the parties.

_________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 29.04.2015 eha