IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.11152 of 2010 Between: Dr. Syed Kaleem Ahmed & 2 others … Petitioners And: State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition No.11152 of 2010 ORDER: Third petitioner-A.3 and 2nd respondent-complainant are present. Sri P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 and Sri V. Raja Manohar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant, are present. 2. It is stated that the first petitioner-A.1 is in abroad and 2nd petitioner-A.2 is suffering from cancer and bedridden. Heard both sides. Both parties have stated that the disputes have been settled out side of the Court and the 2nd respondent has already obtained QULA divorce from the first petitioner-A.1 and she has remarried also. It is further stated that the memorandum of understanding is entered into between the parties and as per the terms of the said memorandum of understanding, the 2nd respondent was paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards one time settlement towards her claim for maintenance etc. The 2nd respondent-complainant admitted the receipt of the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. She further stated that in view of the compromise between the parties, she is no more interested in pursuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 3. In view of the settlement of the dispute between the parties out side the Court and entering into memorandum of understanding with the terms and conditions stipulated therein, which have been given effect to, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings in CC No.672 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3, as the 2nd respondent-complainant is not interested in prosecuting the matter any further. It is therefore, considered a fit case where the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked and further proceedings in CC No.672 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 can be quashed. 4. In the circumstances, further proceedings in CC No.672 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, against the petitioners-A.1 to A.3 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: 09.11.2010 BSS