IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7114 of 2008 Between: Arshabattu Sailaxmi and another .. Petitioners AND Ballem Umajyothi 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 call for the records in C.C. No.88 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judicial Mobile Court, Kakinada and quash the same in so far as petitioners/accused 2 and 3 alone. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.C. Krishnan, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri T.D. Phanikumar, Advocate for the 1st respondent and of the Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel stated that he is entering appearance for the 1st respondent and he is filing Vakalat into the Registry. Heard him and Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent is present before the Court and she is identified by Sri T.D. Phani Kumar and Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel. The 1st respondent stated before the Court that she compromised all the disputes with the accused and settled the differences with her husband and compounded the offences. She stated that she and her husband are living together and are leading happy matrimonial life since last six months. She, therefore, desired that further proceedings in C.C. No.88 of 2008 be quashed. A perusal of the material on record shows that the disputes are purely personal in nature not involving any question of public policy and in view of the compromise, any continuance of the criminal proceedings is futile. A pragmatic view has to be taken to exercise the inherent jurisdiction in such cases, according to the Apex Court and hence, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be invoked in this case accordingly. Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.88 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kakinada are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed accordingly. The 1st respondent is informed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-08-2009 Svv