IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4049 of 2009 DATE:19.08.2010 Between: M.Venkateshwarulu …… Petitioner And: State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4049 of 2009 ORDER : The only point urged by the petitioner’s counsel in this petition is that Rule 14 (12) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (in short, the Rules) are not complied with in as much as there is no endorsement by the parties by way of their signatures in the terms of the settlement. Rule 14 of the Rules lays down procedure to be followed by the counsellors. It does not lay down any rule with regard to the procedure to be followed by the Court. Rule 14(12) reads as follows: “(12) In the event the Counsellor arrives at a resolution of the dispute, he shall record the terms of settlement and get the same endorsed by the parties.” The above sub-Rule (12) is applicable in the event of the counsellor arriving at the resolution of the dispute. In the case on hand, the initial part of the order reads as follows: “Both the persons were referred to counselling. Both the parties and their respective advocates and ICDS officer present. On the counselling made by the ICDS Officer, both advocates and this Court both the parties effected compromise and agreed to the following conditions and orders are passed accordingly.” From the above order, it is clear that both the persons were referred to counselling and that both the parties and their respective advocates and ICDS officer were present and that on the counselling made by the ICDS officer, both the advocates, the Court and both the parties entered into the compromise and agreed to the terms and conditions recorded in the order. Thus, it is not a settlement arrived at by the counsellor during counselling. It is a settlement arrived at by both the parties in open Court, in the presence of their respective advocates and the ICDS officer, who functioned as counsellor. When the agreement was arrived at by both the parties in the presence of the Court and inside the Court is recorded by the Court, Rule 14(12) of the Rules is not applicable. When the entire activity of compromise was effected and arrived at in open Court, any one of the parties cannot go against it. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that terms of settlement arrived at by the parties were rightly recorded into writing by the lower Court in the open Court. There is no infirmity in the said recording of terms. 4) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 19, 2010 KSH