IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.298 of 2008 Between: Pulibandla Venkateswarlu and two others … Petitioners And The State of A.P., represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.298 of 2008 ORDER: - No grounds are made out to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.710 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 to 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.176 of 2007 of II Town Police Station, Ongole, who after due investigation laid the charge sheet before II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole in C.C.No.710 of 2007, since the offences under Sections 3 to 5 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 cannot be compounded. The award passed by the Lok Adalat is on the understanding of the husband/1st respondent therein agreeing to take the wife/de-facto complainant to his house to lead happy marital life, for which the wife agreed to live with her husband peacefully without resorting to the previous incidents. The parents of the wife and husband (R2 and R3) had agreed that they would not interfere in the matrimonial life of the wife and husband and that the authority has advised the parents that it is their responsibility to look after the welfare of the wife and husband without interfering in their matrimonial life. In view of the same, the said award will not prohibit the complainant from lodging a complaint for the offences as referred to above. This court does not see any merit in the contention of the petitioners’ counsel, that when the award is passed the earlier offences committed by the petitioners will be wiped out and the wife cannot lodge such complaint. This court does not see any grounds to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, on petitioners filing an application that they shall be permitted to be represented by accused No.1 on the dates of hearing, the trial court should consider and pass appropriate orders dispensing their presence on all the dates of hearing, except when their presence is required. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 17th June 2010 lmv