IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.Nos.11266 & 217 OF 2010 CRL.P.No.11266 OF 2010 Between:- Velanati Sri Kiran Babu …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and 3 others …Respondents & CRL.P.No.217 OF 2010 Between:- Velanati Bhagya Lakshmi …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and 3 others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.Nos.11266 & 217 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner/A-1 and second respondent/de facto complainant are present. Sri C.V.Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.A.Vara Lakshmi, learned counsel for the second respondent are present. In Crl.P.No.217 of 2010, the petitioner, who is mother of A- 1, and her counsel are also present. 2. It is stated by both the parties that the dispute is settled outside the Court amicably and the parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding and the copy of the same is also placed on record. As per the terms of compromise, it is stated that the marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and other cases filed against one another have also been withdrawn. The second respondent further stated that as per the terms of compromise, she has received a sum of Rs.1,36,353/- through three Laxmi Cash certificates issued by Rayalseema Grameena Bank, Giddalur Branch, as stated in para 7 of the MOU. She further stated that as part of the compromise, a sum of Rs.4 lakhs by way of demand draft is kept with Sri D.Krishna Mohan, Advocate and the same would be delivered to her after quashing of the criminal case filed by her. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that soon after the matter is compromised, the said demand draft will be delivered to the second respondent immediately. 3. As the matter between the parties has been settled amicably out of Court and the parties have entered into compromise as per the terms set out therein and the second respondent-de facto complainant received all the amounts due to her in terms of the settlement and as she is not interested in pursuing the complaint given by her, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 & A-3. 4. In the circumstances, further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-3 in C.C.No.430 of 2009, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Giddalur, Prakasam District, are liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. 5. In the result, both the criminal petitions are disposed of. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th November, 2010 Note:: CC by one week B/o Lrkm.