THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No.5418 of 2007 Date: 26.04.2010 Between: Dornala Nagendar and 3 others … Petitioners AND The State of A.P., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No.5418 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.431 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda. 2. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the unofficial respondent (third respondent) is the wife of the first petitioner herein. The main case is that after the third respondent was examined in chief and cross, the parties have settled the matter and in pursuance of the said settlement, the third respondent was given six demand drafts for Rs.49,000/- each and cash of Rs.6,000/- totalling to Rs.3,00,000/- and six tulas of gold. He has also filed a Xerox copy of Lok Adalat award dated 23.06.2007 which contains one of the terms and conditions at Sl.No.6 showing that the third respondent had agreed to withdraw a criminal case in C.C.No.431 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda, which is impugned in the present case. He has also filed a Xerox copy of compromise petition and all these documents seems to have contained the signature of the third respondent. 3. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that the third respondent is not appearing before this Court in spite of sending notices to her. He also referred some of the documents wherein the third respondent has shown the address mentioned in the cause title of this petition. The record reveals no notice has been served on the third respondent. Postal covers sent to the address of third respondent have been furnished to show that sincere efforts have been made by the petitioners to serve the notice on the third respondent. 4. Main submission of the learned counsel for petitioners is that having entered into a settlement that too before the Lok Adalat and having obtained a decree of divorce in pursuance to the said compromise and having obtained an acquittal order in a Criminal Case filed against the third respondent and her relatives, the third respondent is not coming forward to appear before this Court and to oppose this petition. It is also submitted that a petition was filed before the Magistrate to record compromise, but even after filing of that petition, the third respondent did not appear before the learned Magistrate. 5. As seen from the record, the evidence of third respondent has been recorded as PW.1 in C.C.No.431 of 2004 and after recording her evidence the parties seems to have entered into a settlement and all other cases have been withdrawn in pursuance of said compromise. 6. In the above circumstances, I consider it just and reasonable to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda to consider the application, if any, filed by the petitioners to recall PW.1 to enable the petitioners to confront with the documents, which show the settlement before the Lok Adalat wherein she agreed to withdraw the present case. In case, if the third respondent (PW.1) does not appear before the learned Magistrate in spite of receiving summons in such petition, the learned Magistrate may eschew the evidence of PW.1 for her non-appearance for further cross-examination and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 26.04.2010 Isn