Judgment : The petitioner/A-3 seeks for quashment of the case against her in C.C.No.890 of 2008 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri. 2. Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant had compounded the offence and that the case was acquitted against A-2. He further contended that as the petitioner could not appear at the time of the compounding of the offence, as N.B.W. was pending against her, the trial Court did not compound the offence against the petitioner. He submitted that N.B.W. had already been recalled and that the petitioner is not able to obtain orders of compounding of the offence from the trial Court as the 2nd respondent has not been cooperating before the trial Court to report settlement. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter contending that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and this petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. The case was registered against three accused including the petitioner herein under Sections 498-A, 494 and 420 I.P.C. as well as under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the complaint of the 2nd respondent herein. A charge sheet was subsequently laid before the court, which was registered as C.C.No.890 of 2008 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate. The case of the petitioner, however, is that A-1 is the husband of the petitioner/A-3 and that the de facto complainant was subsequently married to A-1 while the marriage between A-1 and the petitioner continued to subsist. The de facto complainant, on the other hand, contended that she was the legally wedded wife of A-1 and that the petitioner contacted marriage with A-1 knowing fully well that the marriage between the de facto complainant and A-1 had been subsisting. 5. In that background, the de facto complainant entered into compromise with A-2, who is the mother of A-1. The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate recorded compromise on 09.11.2009 that the case was compounded as against A-2. 6. Obviously, both Sections 320(1) and 320(2) Cr.P.C. envisage that what can be compounded is the offences and not case against individual accused. Once an offence is compounded, it stands compounded against all the accused and not against individual accused. 7. The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate recorded compromise on 09.11.2009 that the case was compounded as against A-2. 6. Obviously, both Sections 320(1) and 320(2) Cr.P.C. envisage that what can be compounded is the offences and not case against individual accused. Once an offence is compounded, it stands compounded against all the accused and not against individual accused. 7. Consequently, whether the de facto complainant compounded or did not agree to compound the offence against the petitioner/A-3, the offence automatically stood compounded against the petitioner/A-3 as well once the case was compounded against A-2. In that view of the matter, C.C.No.890 of 2008 against the petitioner/A-3 deserves to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The case against the petitioner/A-3 in C.C.No.890 of 2008 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Malkajgiri stands quashed.