IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.11485 OF 2010 Between:- B.David and three others …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., through its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.11485 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioners/A-1 to A-3 and the second respondent-de facto complainant are present. Sri N.V.Ramana Goud, representing Sri G.Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Venugopal Reddy, representing the second respondent-de facto complainant, are present. 2. It is stated by both parties that the matrimonial disputes between them have been settled outside the Court through the intervention of elders and accordingly a memorandum of understanding was entered into between both the parties and a copy of the same is also filed. It is further stated by both parties that as per the terms of compromise, both parties have applied for divorce by mutual consent by filing O.P.No.141 of 2010 before the Family Court at Secunderabad and divorce by mutual consent was ordered on 22-10-2010 and that the second respondent is taking steps for withdrawal of M.C.No.240 of 2008 filed by her before Additional Family Court at Hyderabad for maintenance. The second respondent further stated that as per the compromise, she has received an amount of Rs.11 lakhs in full and final settlement of all her claims and she also received back the gold ornaments and silver articles and other articles etc. 3. As the dispute between the parties has been settled amicably outside of Court and the same resulted in a memorandum of compromise, as per the terms set out therein and the second respondent-complainant received all the amounts due to her in terms of the settlement and as she is not interested in pursuing the complaint given by her, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. 4. In the circumstances, further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 in C.C.No.788 of 2010, on the file of the XV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are held liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is disposed of as stated above. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd November, 2010 Lrkm.