IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7296 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Mansoor .. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Petition 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 Crime No.285 of 2008 of Falaknuma Police Station, Hyderabad. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are present before the Court in person and they are identified by Sri P. Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.285 of 2008 of Falaknuma Police Station, Hyderabad, registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1) (b) [25 (1B) (b)] of the Arms Act, 1959, who complained against the 2nd respondent and others about an attack on him on 08-11-2008 armed with swords and knives and he also complained of the 2nd respondent stabbing him in the stomach with a knife. Now the petitioner states that he amicably settled all differences with the 2nd respondent through the intervention of elders who mediated and resolved all their differences and both of them were friends and business partners. He, therefore, desired that further proceedings in the case may be quashed against the 2nd respondent and others also. A perusal of the first information report shows that there was no allegation of the 2nd respondent or anybody else acquiring, or possessing or carrying or dealing with firearms or ammunition. It is not known whether the place of occurrence is a place specified by any notification under Section 4 of the Arms Act to make the acquisition or possession or carrying of a knife or sword a contravention of such notification, making it an offence punishable under Section 25 (1B) (b) of the Arms Act, 1959. Though the definition of the word “arms” under Section 2(c) includes sharp-edged and other deadly weapons, the swords and knives said to have been in possession of the 2nd respondent and others, thus, were not specified to be such, the possession of which in a prohibited place would have made them liable for an offence under the Arms Act. Even otherwise, the description of the incident shows that the disputes are purely personal in nature not involving any public policy and carrying of a knife otherwise would not have been considered to be offending any public policy. The continuance of the criminal proceedings will be futile in view of the compromise and the Apex Court held that in such cases, a pragmatic view has to be taken to put an end to vexing litigation by exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the further proceedings in Crime No.285 of 2008 of Falaknuma police station, Hyderabad are quashed and the criminal petition is allowed accordingly. The parties are informed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-09-2009 Svv