THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PEITION Nos.3889; 4832 & 2636 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: All the parties are present. Learned counsel for the petitioners present. 1st respondent in Crl.P.No.2636 of 2011 states that she entered into compromise with the petitioner by receiving Rs.4,00,000/- and that she is not interested in pursuing the complaint in Cr.No.68 of 2011 of Ramachandrapuram police station, Medak District. 2. 1st respondent in Crl.P.No.3889 of 2011 and also the 2nd respondent in Crl.P.No.4832 of 2011, who is the first wife of the petitioner-Dr.Barka Prabhakar, stated that herself and her husband are living together with their children amicably as a result of the compromise and so she is not interested in pursuing the complaint given by her in Cr.No.65 of 2011. Prabhavathi-second wife of the said Barka Prabhakar acknowledged receipt of Rs.4,00,000/-. Barka Prabhakar-husband filed affidavit stating that pursuant to the settlement of the dispute amicably he would lead happy marital life with her first wife and look after her and her two children. 5. In KULWINDER SINGH & OTHERS v. 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 as the dispute between the parties is amicably settled outside the Court and neither the first wife nor the alleged second wife is interested in pursuing the respective complaints given by them, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings in Cr.No.65 of 2011 and Cr.No.68 of 2011. 7. In the result, Criminal Petitions are disposed of and further proceedings against petitioners in Cr.Nos.65 & 68 of 2011 of Tandur police station and Ramachandrapuram police station respectively, are hereby quashed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th July, 2011. Tsy [1] 2007(3) 818 All India Criminal Law Reporter