IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5617 OF 2010 Between:- Annavarapu Phani Krishna and another …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5617 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner/accused and second respondent-de facto complainant are present. Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Rama Krishna, learned counsel representing the second respondent-de facto complainant are present. 2. It is stated by both parties that they have settled the dispute amicably outside the Court and filed a joint memo of compromise wherein it is stated that the petitioner and the second respondent are now living together and leading happy marital life. The second respondent confirmed the same and stated that she does not want to prosecute the case against the petitioner in view of the compromise and they are living together. 3. I n KULWINDER SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER[1], a Larger Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows: “The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduces friction, then it truly is “finest hour of justice”. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say that the power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rule to prescribe the exercise of such power, especially in the absence of any premonitions to forecast and predict eventualities which the cause of justice may throw up during the course of a litigation.” It was further held as follows: “The only inevitable conclusion from the above discussion is that there is no statutory bar under the Cr.P.C. which can affect the inherent power of this Court under Section 482. Further, the same cannot be limited to matrimonial cases alone and the Court has the wide power to quash the proceedings even in non- compoundable offences notwithstanding the bar under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of law and to secure the ends of justice”. 4. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision and having regard to the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably out of Court and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings against the petitioner, it is considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.628 of 2009. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of and further proceedings against petitioner/accused in C.C.No.628 of 2009, on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th November 2010 Lrkm [1] 2007(3) 818 All India Criminal Law Reporter