IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6845 of 2009 and Crl.P.M.P. No.6539 of 2009 Crl.P.No.6845 of 2009: Between: Dr. K. Vijay Sekhar Reddy and another .. Petitioners/A.1 & A.2 AND Smt. C. Babitha and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.974 of 2008 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Crl.P.M.P.No.6539 of 2009: Between: Smt. C. Babitha .. Petitioner AND Dr. K. Vijay Sekhar Reddy and others .. Respondents Petition under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to permit the petitioner to compound the offences under Sections 338 and 352 of IPC in C.C. No.974 of 2008 on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. These petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Surender, Advocate for the petitioners in the main petition and of the Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent in the main petition, the Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The petitioners and the 1st respondent are present in person before the Court and they are identified by Sri K. Surender, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petition itself has been filed stating that the petitioners and the 1st respondent compromised the matter and that the 1st respondent on being compensated, desired to withdraw her complaint. Crl.P.M.P. No.6539 of 2009 is also filed along with the main criminal petition by the 1st respondent requesting for permission to compound the offences under Sections 338 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal petition states that the Magistrate concerned was not inclined to permit compounding of offences, as the deletion of Sections 269 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, alleged in the first information report, from the charge-sheet was unexplained. The 1st respondent stated before the Court also that she compromised the matter with the petitioners and compounded the offences and hence, the criminal proceedings may be dropped. Even assuming that there is an element of involvement of the petitioners in the offences punishable under Sections 269 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned in the first information report, all the four offences specified are personal in nature and the material on record does not show any issue which involves public policy in the facts and circumstances of the case. Continuance of prosecution will be a futile exercise in view of the compromise and the Apex Court held that in such cases, a pragmatic view has to be taken to exercise the inherent jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings. Under the circumstances, the request of the parties has to be acceded to. Accordingly, Crl.P.M.P. No.6539 of 2009 is allowed and the further proceedings in C.C. No.974 of 2008 on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed accordingly. The parties are informed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-08-2009 Svv