D GOPALAM Vs. DUVVURU NAGESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rammohan Reddy, Counsel representing the petitioners, Sri Hyma Kumar, Counsel representing the contesting respondent - de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The Criminal Petition No.3377 of 2003 is filed by A.9, A. 10 and A. 12 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 129 of 2003 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. Likewise, Criminal Petition No.4269 of 2003 is filed by A. 11 and A. 16 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 129 of 2003 aforesaid under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) On 1-3-2006, it was represented that the matter had been settled and the same had been recorded even by the Lok Adalath. Sri Prasanna Kumar Reddy prayed for time to get instructions from the de facto complainant and hence, these matters were adjourned. Sri Hyma Kumar representing Sri Prasanna Kumar Reddy states that the de facto complainant Duwuru Nageswaramma instructed them to the effect that the matter had been settled between the parties. The said submission is hereby recorded. As can be seen from the nature of the allegations made in the complaint, the disputes arose out of matrimonial disputes between the parties. In the light of the fact that both the Counsel reported that the matter had been amicably settled between the parties, it may not be just and proper to continue the proceedings.