IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.244 OF 2007 Between: G.S. Prakash and four others. ..... PETITIONERS. AND Sai Renewable Power Private Limited, Having its Administrative Office at 78-4-33/1, Gandhipuram-3, Rajahmundry, Rep. By its Director M.Appayya, S/o.Poornachandra Rao, Aged 58 Years, Rajahmundry and another. ..... RESPONDENTS. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 855 of 2006 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C. PADMANABHA REDDY, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the second Respondent, the Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.244 OF 2007 ORDER: The Memorandum and Articles of Association of Sai Renewable Power Private Limited, the Certified extract of resolution dated 05-09-2001 and the Authority letter from the Managing Director of the said company dated 17-03-2009 have been filed by the learned senior counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, to show that Sri M. Appayya, Director of the company is authorised to enter into the settlement agreement in respect of the subject matter of this Criminal petition. The said Sri M. Appayya, Director of the first respondent and fourth and fifth petitioners are present in person and they stated that, they compounded all the offences between themselves and that they desire the further Criminal proceedings to be quashed in view of the Settlement out of court. The Memorandum of settlement dated 04-04-2009 is also perused. A perusal of the material on record shows that the disputes are purely personal and commercial in nature, not involving any question of public policy and continuance of the prosecution in view of the compromise will be futile. As such taking a pragmatic view, the Criminal petition has to be ordered in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.855 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry, against the petitioners are quashed and the Criminal petition is allowed accordingly and the parties are informed. ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 13-08-2009. Dsh.