:<�þÿÿÿ9ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ð¿„bjbjqPqP ;::C-ÿÿÿÿÿÿ¤@@@ JVVVjÒÒÒ8 $. jl@N N "p p p p p p ëíííííí$¬h!zVp p p p p VVp p &p ²Vp Vp ëp ër›TVV›p B ó|)UpÐÒ"ŽïÏ<0lýžŽ!°èŽ!›Ž!V›4p p p p p p p ˜jp p p lp p p p jjjD®$jjj®jjjVVVVVVÿÿÿÿHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CRL.M.P.No.16723 of 2014 in Crl.P.No.15655 of 2014 and Crl.P.No.15655 of 2014 COMMON ORDER Heard the de facto complainant and her counsel Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad are present. Accused and his counsel Sri K.Srinivas are present 2. Heard both sides on perused the compromise petition. 3. On the report filed by the de facto complainant, the Police, Kukatpally Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.221 of 2012 against the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and the same is pending before II Additional Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District as S.C.No.634 of 2014. 4. Now, the submission of both sides is that at the intervention of elders, the parities have entered into a compromise and hence, permission may be accorded for compounding the offence and quash the proceedings in S.C.No.634 of 2014. 4. Having regard to the above said submission and considering the fact that it is a financial matter and parties have amicably settled their dispute and no purpose will be served even if the parties are driven to trial and following the decision reported in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another, compromise is recorded in terms of accompanying compromise petition and consequently the proceedings in S.C.No.634 of 2014 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed. 5. In the result, both the petitions are accordingly allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 27th March 2015. mar (2012 10 SC 303 PAGE PAGE 2 +36^_bxyz†‡ˆ’š - 8 B E `
