HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.A.M.P.No.1991 of 2009 IN Crl.A.No.973 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Crl.A.M.P.No.1991 of 2009: Petitioner/complainant and respondents/A-1 and A-2 are present. Learned counsel for both parties are present. It is stated that both parties have entered into a compromise and resolved their dispute amicably and they are living together. In the circumstances, the petitioner/complainant is permitted to compound the offence with the respondent/accused. Crl.A.M.P.No.1991 of 2009 is ordered accordingly. Crl.A.No.1991 of 2009: Both parties are present. Learned counsel for both parties are present and identified the parties. Both parties have stated that they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and entered into a compromise and they are living together. Permission to compound the offence is accorded in Crl.A.No.1991 of 2009. The complainant is wife of A-1 and A-2 is their son. Having regard to the close relationship among the parties and also fact that they have settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and entered into a compromise and are now living together happily and that the complainant stated that in view of the compromise, she is not interested to continue the proceedings against the accused, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the appellants/A-1 and A-2. In KULWINDER SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER[1], the Larger Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows: “The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.” It was further held as follows: “The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice”. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision and also in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and compounding of the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and 506 IPC, the accused are acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The criminal appeal is disposed of accordingly. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th August, 2009 Lrkm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Crl.A.M.P.No.1991 of 2009 IN Crl.A.No.973 of 2008 Crl.A.M.P.No.1991 of 2009 Between: G.Bharathamma …Petitioner/Complainant/P.W.1 A n d G.Prem Babu and another …. Respondents/Accused A N D Crl.A.No.973 of 2008 G.Prem Babu and another …Appellants/A-1 & A-2 A n d State rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. …Respondent/Complainant [1] 2007(3) 818 All India Criminal Law Reporter