THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PEITION No.4567 OF 2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the further proceedings in C.C.No.60 of 2011 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, police registered Cr.No.490 of 2010 and after investigation, filed charge sheet which is taken cognizance as C.C.No.60 of 2011 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. All the petitioners and the 2nd respondent present. Learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent present. 4. It is stated by both parties that they have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and filed a joint memo of compromise wherein it is stated that the 2nd respondent has received a demand draft of Rs.4,00,000/- drawn at State Bank of India, Hyderabad towards permanent alimony from the petitioners and that the jehaz articles’ amount was returned and the Mehar and Iddath period amount was also deposited before Khazi and thus all the claims of the 2nd respondent as against the petitioners-A1 to A5 are settled and the 2nd respondent is therefore withdrawing the complaint. 2nd respondent filed an affidavit also to the same effect. 5. In KULWINDER SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER[1], a larger Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows: “The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord- tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.” It was further held as follows: “The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non-compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice”. 6. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision and having regard to the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of Court and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings against the petitioner, it is considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash further proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.60 of 2011 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,Hyderabad. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is disposed of and further proceedings against petitioners-A1 to A5 in C.C.No.60 of 2011 on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th July, 2011. Tsy [1] 2007(3) 818 All India Criminal Law Reporter