IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6796 OF 2010 Between : Pasupala Shoba Yadav. ....PETITIONER A N D State of A.P. and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6796 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner / A.2 seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.92 of 2007, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. 2. The allegation against the present petitioner / A-2 and two other persons who were arrayed as A-1 and A-3, entered into the Clinic of the de facto complainant Dr.Godi Anuradha and damaged the property and abused her by using her caste name. On the basis of the complaint given by the complainant, Police registered a case and investigation was completed and charge sheet also filed against all the persons. 3. Today, the case is coming up for hearing, the respondent / de facto complainant Dr.Anuradha, appeared before this Court and stated that she is not intending to proceed further against the petitioner / A-2 herein. In support of her contention, she also filed an affidavit, which runs as follows: “I Dr.Godi Anuradha W/o Satyanarayana, aged about 39 years, Occupation : Private Medical Practitioner, Ankitha Hospital, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, do hereby solemnly and sincerely affirm and state on oath as follows: I am the complainant in Crime No.147 of 2004 of P.S.Ibrahimpatnam of Ranga Reddy District. I lodged the above complaint against A-1 to A-3, who came to my hospital to enquire about condition of a patient i.e., Jangamma. No doubt, A-2 also accompanied with A-1 and A-3, but she has not abused me touching my caste. I only stated in my complaint that they abused me on the basis of my caste and on that basis, the A-2 has also been implicated in the Crime. In fact she has not abused me, but was present at that time, when the incident took place. By mistake I stated A-2’s name also, in my complaint. I do not want to proceed further against the A-2 in the alleged offence”. 3. The de facto complainant further informed to this Court that she was not present at the scene of occurrence but due to information given by others she has included A-2’s name in the First Information Report. When this Court explained to her if such an affidavit filed which will cause prejudice to her before the trial Court and the trial Court conducted trial against other two persons, those who are arrayed as A-1 and A-3, the de facto complainant expressed wholeheartedly that she does not want to proceed further in this matter against the petitioner/ A-2 herein. The complainant produced the identity card in proof of her identity. The learned Public Prosecutor also reported no objection for the same. 4. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no need to proceed further in this matter. Accordingly, the proceedings in P.R.C.No.92 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed against the present petitioner / A-2 alone. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO AUGUST 09, 2010. YVL