HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.8728 OF 2008 AND 9491 OF 2010 Date: 05-10-2010 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8728 OF 2008 Between: Smt. Tamkeen Nizami and three others. --- Petitioners/ A-4 to A-7. And Smt. Nusrath Sultana and The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondents. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9491 OF 2010 Between: Khaja Waseem Nizami and two others. --- Petitioners/ A-1 to A-3. And Smt. Nusrath Sultana and The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondents This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.8728 OF 2008 AND 9491 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition 8728 of 2008 is filed by the petitioners/A-4 to A-7 and Criminal Petition 9491 of 2010 is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.342 of 2008, dated 18-12-2008, on the file of PS Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A-1 to A-7, learned counsel for the first respondent/de-facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. On the report lodged by the first respondent/de-facto complainant, F.I.R. No.342 of 2008 was registered by the PS Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, against the petitioners alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (For short, ‘the Act’). The first respondent/de-facto complainant who is now present before this Court states that while the matter is pending before the trial Court, she compromised with the petitioners in both the cases and she took Qulanama from the first petitioner and the first petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) towards permanent alimony and she further submit that in view of the compromise, F.I.R. in Crime No.342 of 2008, dated 18-12-2008, on the file of PS Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, may be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon a decision reported in B.S. Joshi and others V. State of Haryana and another[1] wherein it is held that : “When an application is filed by the wife to quash the proceedings initiated by her, under Section 498-A IPC, refusal to exercise inherent power by the High Court is not proper as it would prevent women from settling earlier and that is not the object of Chapter XXA of Penal Code.” Further, the offence under Section 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is non compoundable and therefore it is not possible for the de-facto complainant to compound the offence before the trial Court. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that, If the investigation is allowed to continue in spite of the compromise, it will cause much inconvenience and hardship to the de-facto complainant and no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case pending before the trial Court. For the foregoing reasons, the entire investigation relating to F.I.R. in Crime No.342 of 2008, dated 18-12-2008, on the file of PS Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, is hereby quashed. Both the Criminal Petitions are allowed accordingly. ________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Dated: 05-10-2010 Dsh. [1] AIR 2003 SC 1386