IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7335 OF 2009 Between: M. Suresh Sagar ..... Petitioner/Respondent AND Smt. M. Anuradha & 2 others ..... Respondents/Petitioners 1, 2 & 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.871 of 2006 in M.C.No.86 of 1998, on the file of the learned Family Court Judge-cum-XXIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. Inspite of service to the Respondents, none appears. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order of this Court. The dispute is with regard to payment of transport charges to the respondents herein in pursuance of the order, dated 26.06.2000, in M.C.No.86 of 1998, passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Hyderabad. On earlier occasion, when the same grievance was expressed in Crl.M.P.No.1003 of 2004 in M.C.No.86 of 1998, on the file of the learned Family Court Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, the trial Court, by an order, dated 14.10.2004, closed the petition as the petitioner paid the entire arrears amount as per the calculation memo. The said order, dated 14.10.2004, was set aside by an order, dated 17.10.2006, passed in Crl.P.No.3504 of 2005, by this Court holding thus: “the matter is remitted to the Trial Court giving an opportunity to both the parties to establish their claim by filing calculation memos and documents, if any on such filing the trial court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law.” 4. Admittedly, that Crl.M.P.No.1003 of 2004 in M.C.No.86 of 1998 is still pending. Necessary orders have to be passed in the said petition. Instead of disposing that petition, as per directions of this Court, passing the impugned order, dated 25.08.2009, in Crl.M.P.No.871 of 2006 is not warranted. Hence, the impugned order, dated 25.08.2009, is set aside and the trial Court is directed to pass appropriate orders in pursuance of the directions given by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in order, dated 26.02.2009, in Crl.P.No.3504 of 2005. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 7th October, 2009. KL