THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.838 of 2008 Date of Order: 15-07-2010 Between: Kuthadi @ Erukala Srinivas ..Petitioner and 1.State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.No.838 of 2008 Oral order: This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.7 in C.C.No.525 of 2007, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 386 and 120(B) IPC. The complaint allegations and charge sheet filed clearly disclose that the 2nd respondent herein lodged a compliant on 03-11-2005 stating that 1/4th of his land is in the name of four persons including Allam Shankaraiah (complainant), Allam Krishna, Allam Illaiah and Allam Venkatesh and a case is pending in the High Court with regard to the said land. While the matter is pending, A1, A2 and A3 started intimidating to kill them and forcibly taken undertaking from the complainant showing that they gave 9.5 acres to the accused and took their signatures. Since from the said date, the three accused persons forcing to register the land in their names and posing themselves as Maoists, threatening that they would attack their house. The investigation further reveals that after the death of L.W.1’s father, the said properties were inherited to him, but A1 to A3 disputed the title and possession of L.W.1 and approached the court. However, the court decreed the suit in favour of L.W.1. A1 to A3 contacted A4 to settle the land dispute and offered commission. In turn, A4 contacted A7 and informed about the land dispute between A1 to A3 and L.Ws.1 to 6 and offered commission for settlement. As such A7 contacted A8; then A4 engaged A5 and A6 with the instigation of A7 and A8 to fulfil their work and introduced A1 to A3. Accordingly, A4, A5 and A6, who were engaged to fulfil the work of settlement, posed themselves as Maoists demanded L.Ws.1 to 6 to part with a share of land to A1 to A3. It is A4 to A6 reached the land of L.W.2 and threatened him by showing guns and asked them to settle the land dispute. Nowhere in the complaint it is stated that A7 was involved in the commission of offence. Admittedly, A1 to A3 contacted A4 to settle the dispute, who (A4) in turn contacted A7 to settle the dispute and offered commission. It is not an offence at all. In view of the same, the proceedings against the petitioner (A7) cannot be continued and they are accordingly quashed. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 15-07-2010 Note: Issue CC in two days. (bo) Murthy