IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.8187 of 2008 Between: Rathna Ramchander & 2 others .. Petitioners AND State of A.P. & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.8187 of 2008 ORDER: The first petitioner and the second respondent are present in person and they are identified by Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.V.S. Sarma, learned counsel for the second respondent. The first petitioner and the second respondent stated that they compromised all disputes between them as a result of which O.P.No.231 of 2010, on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, for divorce with mutual consent was allowed on 24.05.2011. A copy of the order of the Family Court is made available for perusal by the learned counsel for the second respondent. 2. In fact, when this matter came up for hearing on 19.02.2010, the second respondent and the first petitioner were present before the learned Judge and it was reported to the learned Judge then itself about filing of a petition for divorce by mutual consent due to settlement between the parties. The learned Judge only felt that it is not desirable to quash the proceedings so long as the divorce petition has not been disposed of and the pass port of the second respondent was also stated to have been deposited into Court. (The second respondent stated now that she had taken return of the pass port from the Court.) The learned Judge then directed the parties to appear after the disposal of the divorce petition in compliance of which direction, the parties are before the Court now. 3. In view of the settlement and compromise between the parties and the allegations in the criminal petition being uncontroverted by the second respondent as of now after the compromise, the involvement of the petitioners herein in the alleged offences is left without any basis. Even the contents of the charge sheet made a bald allegation about the in-laws and sister-in-law harassing the second respondent herein and there were no specific acts of commission and omission which appear to have been alleged against them as per the charge sheet. Any deeper probe into the prima facie existence of any case against the petitioners herein in the criminal prosecution will not be in the interests of justice when the parties have amicably settled their disputes outside the Court and this is an eminently fit case where the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is called for in favour of the petitioners. 4. Therefore, further proceedings in C.C.No.1072 of 2008, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, are quashed against the petitioners and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12th October, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.8187 of 2008 Date: 12th October, 2011 KL