IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD (23RD) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.11666 of 2010 Between: Md. Nasar Ahmed Quadri … Petitioner And: The state of A.P., through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.11666 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are present. Sri C. Chandra Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Syed Khadar Masthan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, are also present. 2. Both parties have stated that the matrimonial dispute has been resolved amicably out side the Court and they are living together and leading happy marital life. The 2nd respondent filed an affidavit enclosing the memorandum of understanding cum settlement deed executed between the parties, wherein it is stated that both the parties have re-united and resolved their dispute amicably. The 2nd respondent further stated that in view of the compromise, she is no longer interested in prosecuting the petitioner 3. Having regard to the fact that the dispute has been settled out side the Court and both parties have entered into memorandum of understanding and they are living together and the 2nd respondent- complainant is no more interested in prosecuting criminal proceedings against the petitioner, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings in PRC No.42 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner. It is therefore considered a fit case to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash further proceedings against the petitioner in PRC No.42 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 4. In the circumstances, further proceedings in PRC No.42 of 2010 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioner are held liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of as stated above. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 23.11.2010 bss