THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 9278 of 2009 & 554 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No.84 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.9278 of 2009 is A.1, and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.554 of 2010 are A.2 and A.3, in the P.R.C. 2. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised when there is an abuse of process of any Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to any order under the Code. 3. The charge sheet was laid by police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. As regards the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., there is no whisper in the charge sheet to show that the accused intended to kill the defacto complainant with intention or knowledge that his acts would likely to cause her death. In the complaint lodged under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and also when she was examined under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C., she stated that, on one occasion, the accused cut electrical A.C. wire, and on another occasion, the accused tried to throttle her neck. Except these two bald allegations, there are no other overt-acts that the accused intended to make an attempt to kill the defacto complainant. Cutting electrical A.C. wire would, at best, amount to preparation to commit an offence. Unless some overt-acts are attributed in furtherance of that preparation, that by itself is not an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Therefore, even if the entire allegations are taken as true and correct at this stage, prima facie, no ingredients are made out for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., and hence, continuation of the impugned proceedings in respect of the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 4. Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, are concerned, the second respondent, who is the complainant, is present in the Court. She is identified by her counsel. The second respondent produced her credit card issued by Andhra Bank, which reveals her identity. She stated that she has no objection to quash the impugned proceedings against her husband and in-laws, in view of the fact that the matter has been settled outside the Court at the instance of elders. The offences alleged are compoundable. Therefore, in view of the compromise between the parties, continuation of the proceedings in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498A I.P.C. and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 5. The Criminal Petitions are, accordingly, allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein, in P.R.C. No.84 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool. ---------------- 28.1.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 554 OF 2010 Date: 28.1.2010 Between: Dr.B.P.V. Subba Reddy & another …Petitioners/accused And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU COMMON ORDER IN CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 9278 of 2009 & 554 OF 2010 28.1.2010