IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9738 OF 2009 BETWEEN: 1. Appi Reddy Madhava Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy 2. Appireddy Lakshmamma W/o. Narayana Reddy …. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 AND 1. The State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. A. Sreedevi W/o. Madhava Reddy …. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.9738 OF 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners Appireddy Madhava Reddy, Appidreddy Lakshmamma – accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking to quash the judgment dated 22-02- 2008 in C.C. No.108 of 2006, whereby the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, convicted and sentenced them of the offence under Sections 498-A and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard. 3. Petitioner No.1 is husband and petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant A. Sreedevi, respondent No.2 herein. 4. The de facto complainant and the petitioners are present before the Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. Further, in proof of her identity, the de facto complainant produced her original electoral card bearing No.SGE0381111, a xerox copy of the same is filed herewith showing petitioner No.1 as her husband, which also contains her photograph, her date of birth as 1974 and residential address as 6-38, 6-1 to 7-117, Gangannapalem, H/O.Govindapuram (V) Chilakaluripet (M), Guntur. Thus, there is no dispute about the identity of the de facto complainant. 5. On being questioned, the de facto complainant reports that the petitioners compromised the matter with her out of the Court and they are living together, as such, the proceedings against them may be quashed. 6. As the parties have amicably settled the mater between them out of the Court and in view of the nature of offence, the impugned judgment can be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the proceedings in Criminal Appeal Nos.41 of 2008 and 35 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur shall stand quashed and the judgment in C.C. No.108 of 2006 shall stand set aside. 8. In case the petitioners harass the de facto complainant again, within a period of three years from today, the Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur shall stand restored on an application by the de facto complainant for that purpose. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed at the admission stage itself. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 25, 2009. KTL