IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6009 OF 2009 Between: Mohammed Farooq and two others. ..... PETITIONERS. AND The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, and another. ..... RESPONDENTS. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6672 OF 2009 Between: Mohammed Siddique Hasan. ..... PETITIONER. AND The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, and another. ..... RESPONDENTS. Petitions 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 C.C. 164 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. BALI REDDY, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the first Respondent. the Court made the following Common Order : HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6009 AND 6672 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The second respondent in both the petitions, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6672 of 2009 and petitioners 2 and 3 in Criminal Petition No.6009 of 2009 are present in person before the Court and they are identified by Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for the second respondent. Heard Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri Babuji Tenneti, learned counsel for the second respondent. Criminal petition No.6672 of 2009 was specifically filed alleging that the parties compromised all their disputes and resolved their differences. A Memorandum of final settlement/deed of compromise was also filed along with the Criminal petition. The second respondent also filed an affidavit before the Court to the same effect requesting for compounding the offences and to quash the proceedings. The second respondent stated before the Court also about the compromise and of compounding the offences and requested to quash the proceedings. The disputes are purely personal in nature not involving any public policy and there is no purpose in continuing the prosecution after the compromise. The Court should take a pragmatic view in such matters as held by the Apex Court and take recourse to the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the further proceedings in C.C. No.164 of 2009 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are quashed and the Criminal petitions are allowed accordingly. The parties are informed. ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-08-2009. Dsh.