HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P. NO.9084 of 2010 DATE: 29.09.2010 BETWEEN: Ramakrishna Yerra @ Krishna Rao and others .. Petitioners And State of A.P. and another ` .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P. NO.9084 of 2010 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.420 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 420, 468, 472 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. The first petitioner is the husband of the second respondent/de facto complainant. The de facto complainant and her husband are present. On the report lodged by the de facto complainant, the W.P.S, Begumpet registered a case in Crime No.178 of 2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 468, 472 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and after completing investigation they filed charge sheet. Now the matter is pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. At the intervention of the elders, both the parties have settled their disputes. The de facto complainant submitted that she sorted out her disputes with the accused and she also obtained divorce in O.P.No.1007 of 2008 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad against the first petitioner. She further submitted that she compromised the matter with the petitioners and also entered into Memorandum of Understanding dated 17.07.2010 and admitted the terms of the said memorandum of understanding. In view of the compromise, she is no longer interested to prosecute the case and therefore, she stated no objection to quash the proceedings. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that since the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are non-compoundable, it is not possible for the parties to compound the offences before the trial Court. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that even if the proceedings in C.C.No.420 of 2009 are allowed to be continued, no useful purpose will be served and there is no possibility for the prosecution to secure conviction. After obtaining decree of divorce by the second petitioner, she married another person and now she is living with him. Therefore, keeping the case any longer pending would amounts to abuse of process of law. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.420 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 468, 472 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 29 .09.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRL. P. NO.9084 of 2010 DATE: 29.09.2010