IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6218 OF 2009 Between: Mohd. Munwar Ansari. ..... PETITIONER. AND The State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and two others. ..... RESPONDENTS. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.171 of 2009 on the file of Falaknuma Police station, Hyderabad. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Ms. NASEEB AFSHAN, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. SHAIK SAIFULLAH, Advocate for the first and second respondents and of the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the third respondent. The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6218 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Smt. Naseeb Afshan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shaik Saifullah, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the third respondent. The petitioner is stated to be still in judicial custody in prison. The respondents 1 and 2 are present in person before the court and they are identified by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. The affidavits of the respondents 1 and 2 are also filed along with the Criminal petition. The respondents 1 and 2 stated before the court that they have compromised all their disputes with the petitioner and compounded the offences and therefore the petitioner can be relieved from further criminal proceedings. The second respondent who is dumb indicated her response by gestures which evidently showed her voluntary request for dropping further criminal proceedings in view of the compromise. On the written report of the defacto-complainant, the crime was registered by the police only under Section 354 of Code of Criminal Procedure which appears to be compoundable under Sub-section 2 of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the permission of the Court but, when the parties approached the Lok Adalat, the Lok Adalat refused to record the compromise and pass an award considering the offences alleged to be under Section 376 read with section 511 of the I.P.C. which is not compoundable but, the premise on which the Lok Adalat proceeded also appears to be not supported by the allegations made in the F.I.R. Even otherwise, the disputes are personal in nature and involve no public policy and continuance of the Criminal proceedings in view of the compromise will be an exercise in futility. The apex court advised that a pragmatic view has to be taken in such matters requiring invocation of the inherent jurisdiction and this petition has to be allowed accordingly. Therefore, the further proceedings in Crime No.171 of 2009 on the file of Falaknuma police station, Hyderabad, against the petitioner are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed accordingly. The respondents 1 and 2 are informed. ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 13-08-2009. Dsh. Note: Furnish C.C. today.