THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.9890 of 2010 AND Crl.P.No.9892 of 2010 Crl.P.No.9890 of 2010 Between: Riazuddin Ahmed and three others …Petitioners And Smt. Farah Yasmin and another …Respondents Crl.P.No.9892 of 2010 Between: Riazuddin Ahmed and two others …Petitioners And The State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.9890 of 2010 AND Crl.P.No.9892 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Crl.P.No.9890 of 2010 is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in DVC No.53 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Whereas, Crl.P.No.9892 of 2010 is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.503 of 2009 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Since both the cases which were sought to be quashed were filed basing on the complaint made by the de facto complainant and the accused are common in both the cases and virtually the matter being between the same parties, both the petitions are disposed of by the following common order. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. On the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the WPS, CCS, Hyderabad registered a case in Crime No.93 of 2008 on the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 498- A IPC r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet and the case is pending as CC NO.503 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The same de facto complainant also filed DVC NO.53 of 2010 against the petitioners therein and now the said case is pending on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The de facto complainant and the petitioners have compromised the matter and the said fact is mentioned in the criminal petitions filed by them. Today, the de facto complainant is present in the Court and stated that she has compromised the matter with the parties in both the cases. Since the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable, the parties expressed their inability to get the cases compounded before the trial Court. In view of the compromise, if the cases are allowed to be pending, it causes much inconvenience and hardship to the parties. Considering the circumstances, under which the present petitions came to be filed, I am of the considered view that to meet the requirement of justice and to avoid inconvenience and hardship to the parties, the proceedings in both the cases have to be quashed. Consequently, the proceedings in both the criminal cases are hereby quashed and both the criminal petitions are allowed. _______________ Date:07.10.2010. R. KANTHA RAO, J ccm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Crl.P.No.9890 of 2010 AND Crl.P.No.9892 of 2010 DATE:07.10.2010