THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10266 OF 2009 And CRIMINAL PETITION No.10267 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Parties in these two criminal petitions are one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. These two Criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.604 of 2008 and C.C.115 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal and XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, respectively, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 352, 504, 506 and 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. Heard both sides. 4. In both these criminal petitions, the complainant-second respondent is one and the same and first petitioner in Crl.P.No.10267 of 2009 is the husband of the complainant and second petitioner is sister, third petitioner is grand mother, fourth petitioner is maternal aunt, fifth petitioner is brother, sixth petitioner is maternal uncle, seventh petitioner is mother and eighth petitioner is maternal uncle of the first petitioner. Petitioners 1,2,4,6,7,8, and 9 in Crl.P.No.10266 of 2009 are already arrayed as accused in Crl.P.No.10267 of 2009, whereas petitioners 3 and 5 in Crl.P.No.10266 of 2009 are brother-in- law, and brother, petitioners 10 and 11 are maternal aunts of first petitioner in Crl.P.No.10267 of 2009. 5. The dispute arises mainly out of matrimonial dispute between the second respondent – complainant and the first petitioner in Crl.P.No.10267 of 2009, which is filed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.115 of 2006 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 6. The second respondent - de facto complainant present and in proof of her identity, she filed her voter identity card bearing No.BYX2888147 showing her address as 7-1-304/4A, Sanjeev Reddy Nagar, Sanathnagar Assembly Constituency. All the petitioners in both the petitions are also present. The second respondent – complainant reported that both the matters are compromised between herself and her husband - the first petitioner in Crl.P.No.10267 of 2009 and other relatives and in pursuance of the settlement, she has received a cash of Rs.12,00,000/-(Rupees twelve lakhs only) towards the amount paid to her husband’s people at the time of her marriage and reports that her gold is already with her, that she has obtained an exparte divorce against the first petitioner in Crl.P.No.10267 of 2009 vide orders in O.P.No.938 of 2007 of Family Court, Hyderabad. One Narsaiah, who is the General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of first petitioner in Crl.P.No.10267 of 2009 (who is now stated to be living in Australia) reports that the first petitioner is agreeable for the said settlement and he would not file any petition for setting aside the exparte divorce decree granted in O.P.No.938 of 2007, nor would file any appeal against the same and the spouses would separate permanently. 7. In the circumstances, as the dispute arises out of matrimonial matter, proceedings in C.C.No.115 of 2006 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and C.C.No.604 of 2008 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, shall stand quashed against all the petitioners in both the criminal petitions and it is made clear that in pursuance of the settlement, petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.10267 of 2009 Bandi Rajender Prasad @ Raju, shall not be entitled to file any petition for setting aside the exparte divorce decree in O.P.No.938 of 2007, nor to file any appeal against the above exparte decree. 8. Both the Criminal Petitions are accordingly allowed. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 11th day of December 2009 Rns