( 1 ) HEARD Sri Challa Dhananjaya, learned Counsel representing the petitioners, sri Suresh, learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent and also the Additional public Prosecutor.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 4 in C. C. No. 473/1999 on the file of iv Metropolitan Magistrate-Cum-Mahila court, Vijayawada, for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. It was further stated that the learned Magistrate after conducting elaborate trial acquitted the other accused, as the 1st respondent/ complainant could not prove the guilt of the accused. The case was separated against the petitioners herein, since they could not appear before the said Court at the time of trial. It is further stated that the petitioners have preferred the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 473/ 1999 in view of the acquittal of the other accused in Crime No. 608/1997. It is further stated that during the pendency of the present proceedings, the mediators and the well-wishers of both the parties intervened and settled the dispute amicably by entering into an agreement which is reduced into writing on 19th October, 2002 to withdraw the case against the petitioners and also agreed to give divorce and the terms of compromise also has been filed along with this criminal petition. It was further stated that pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the 1 st respondent, the daughter of the 1st respondent filed divorce petition against the petitioner for grant of divorce and the same is pending on the file of the Family court, Vijayawada. It is further stated that there is no possibility of reconciliation between the husband and wife. The amount agreed towards permanent alimony was taken in the form of Demand Draft and kept in the custody of mediators. Inasmuch as, both the parties have agreed to live separately, to lead their respective lives in a peaceful manner, there is no point in prosecuting the case further and hence it is prayed that the proceedings in CC. No. 473/ 99 may be quashed.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel representing the respective parties Sri Challa Dhananjaya and also Sri Suresh had brought to my notice the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in T. Chanda Papa Rao and others v. State, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 519 (AP), and had submitted that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the proceedings may be quashed.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri Khadeer had submitted that the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as code ) are to be exercised sparingly and the object of exercising such powers normally, should be to keep up the matrimonial home or matrimonial tie between the parties and not a case where there may be disruption of the tie between the spouses. The learned Counsel made elaborate submissions relating to the objects of the statutory provision and had contended that exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code in such a case will amount to defeating the very object of the statutory provision.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel representing the respective parties and also the Additional public Prosecutor at length.

( 6 ) IT is, no doubt, true that normally in cases of this nature with the object of keeping the matrimonial tie intact and with the fond hope that the spouses will lead happy marital life in such matters, this court has been exercising the powers under section 482 of the Code. However, a division Bench of this Court in the decision referred to Chanda Papa Rao (supra) at page 524, had observed:". . . . . . . . . . . THE dispute is settled between the parties and both the parties are satisfied that they cannot live as wife and husband any more and both of them take wise decision to separate from each other, the proper provision is made by the husband for the maintenance of the wife, the matrimonial relations between the parties are put to an end by t