HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9907 OF 2010 DATE: 05-10-2010 BETWEEN: Asianet Communications Ltd., Rep. by its President and C.E.O., Jay Chambers, Service Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 4000 057 and four others. - - - Petitioners. AND Station House Officer, Police Station, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9907 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the F.I.R. No. 296 of 2010, on the file of Jubilee Hills Police Station, Hyderabad, registered pursuant to the Order passed by the learned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Magistrate’) under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., on 25-06-2010 Heard Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. De-facto complainant Ms. Mounika, Daughter of Kanaka Rao, is present in the Court and stated that she filed a complaint against the petitioners before the learned Magistrate alleging commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, who are running a television channel had conducted a programme “Dhoom Macha De” a dance based reality show and announced that the winner of the programme will be awarded a grand prize and thereafter at the completion of the programme, the panel of the judges declared the third respondent/de-facto complainant as winner of the programme but, the petitioners failed to keep their promise and did not give the prize money to the third respondent. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to the Station House Officer, Jubilee Hills police station, for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and in pursuance thereof the police registered a case against the petitioners under Section 406 and 420 IPC and the investigation is still pending. She further submitted that she compromised the matter with the Petitioners/Accused and in view of the compromise, she received an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) through two demand drafts i.e., an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid through a D.D. earlier and today the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is paid through a D.D. in the Court. In view of the compromise, third respondent/de-facto complainant submits that the entire investigation pursuant to the complaint made by her may be quashed. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a decision reported in Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab[1] wherein the Supreme Court held that : “When the dispute between the parties is purely personal one, which arose out of business dealings between them and no public policy is being involved, no useful purpose will be served in continuing with the proceedings, as the possibility of a conviction being recorded has to be ruled out.” In the present case, in view of the compromise, if the investigation is allowed to be proceeded with, it will cause much inconvenience to the parties and absolutely no useful purpose will be served and moreover, it also amounts to abuse of process of law. For the foregoing reasons, F.I.R. No.296 of 2010, registered pursuant to the complaint made by the third respondent/de-facto complainant, on the file of Jubilee Hills Police station, Hyderabad, is quashed. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. ________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Dated: 05-10-2010 Dsh. [1] AIR 2008 SC 1969