HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NOs.9348 and 9349 of 2010 DATE: 06.10.2010 CRL.P.NO.9348 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Pannala Vamshidhar Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. and another ` .. Respondents CRL. P.NO. 9349 of 2010 BETWEEN: Pannala Vamshidhar Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of A.P. and another ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NOs.9348 and 9349 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Crl.P.No.9348 of 2010 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC No.21 of 2010 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District for the offences under Sections 452, 307, 429 read with 511 of IPC. Crl.P.No.9349 of 2010 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC No.74 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District for the offences under Sections 447, 440 and 307 of IPC. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. The de facto complainant is the father-in-law of the petitioner. Some differences arose between the daughter of the de facto complainant and her husband, the petitioner herein. Thus, there were some ill-feelings between the parties prior to lodging of reports by the de facto complainant/second respondent in both the criminal petitions. Basing on his report, PRC.No.21 of 2010 was filed, whereas PRC.No.74 of 2010 was filed alleging that the petitioner has trespassed in to the poultry farm with poisonous substance to mix the same in the water of overhead tank. Subsequent to the lodging of the complaints, the parties have compromised the matter. The petitioner and his wife, who is the daughter of the de facto complainant filed a petition seeking divorce by mutual consent which is now pending as O.P.No.402 of 2010 on the file of the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner and the second respondent are present in the Court and the second respondent stated that he compromised the matter with the petitioner and he is no longer interested to prosecute the cases. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that even if the case is proceeded with, there is no chance of conviction of the petitioner as the de facto complainant and other witnesses will not give any evidence against the petitioner. Therefore, to avoid inconvenience and hardship to the parties, it is expedient to quash the proceedings as prayed for. For the reasons mentioned above, the proceedings in PRC No.21 of 2010 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District for the offences under Sections 452, 307, 429 read with 511 of IPC and also proceedings in PRC No.74 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District for the offences under Sections 447, 440 and 307 of IPC are hereby quashed. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 06.10.2010 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P.NOs.9348 and 9349 of 2010 DATE: 06.10.2010