THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5322 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner approaches the Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.380 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 420 read with 34 of IPC. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Today, the de facto complainant – B.Lavanya and the revision petitioner-accused N.Shashi Bhushan are present. She filed her voter identity card bearing No.FYY0333690 in proof of her identity. Petitioner filed a copy of the Memorandum of Compromise along with the present petition, which reads as follows: i. Whereas the 2nd respondent herein filed C.C.No.380 of 2010 on the file of the Hon’ble XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad under Section 498-A and 420 IPC read with 34 IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; ii. Whereas the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein have compromised and they do not want to pursue either the criminal case filed by the second respondent or the divorce application filed under Section 12(1)© read with sec.13(1)(I-a) of Hindu Marriage Act by the petitioner in the court of IV Additional Principal Family Judge, Bangalore; iii. Whereas the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have also entered into a memorandum of understanding to have amicable settlement outside the court vis-à-vis their disputes. Pursuant to the same petitioner and the 2nd respondent have jointly presented an application seeking divorce by mutual consent in the Family Court, Hyderabad, while taking steps to withdraw M.C.No.2303 of 2009 filed by the petitioner in the court of the IV Additional Prl. Family Judge at Bangalore and the same is withdrawn; iv. Whereas the petitioner and the 2nd respondent have agreed that to avoid unpleasantness after amicable settlement, they have agreed not to pursue the criminal case filed by 2nd respondent under Section 498(A). Petitioner is informed that the offence generally is not compounded by a trial Court for want of inherent jurisdiction and also for the reason that it is not covered by Tables A and B under Section 320 Cr.P.C. v. Therefore, Crl.P.No.5322 of 2011 on the file of this Hon’ble Court as well as C.C.No.380 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, may be dismissed as compromised, without costs. When questioned also, it is reported by the complainant that the matter is settled out of court between herself and her husband and prays to acquit the accused. 4. For compounding the offence, this Court directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards costs before the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, and accordingly he paid the same before the said authority under receipt No.239 dated 05.09.2011. 5. As the matter arises out of matrimonial disputes and as the complainant herself reported that the matter is settled and in view of the provision under Section 320 Cr.P.C., under which the petitioner is entitled for acquittal, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.380 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. __________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 5th September 2011, Rns.