HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.3147 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420/34 IPC. The petitioners are seeking quashing of FIR issued by the police on the basis of referred private complaint by the Magistrate for investigation. There is no dispute about the petitioners and others entering into memorandum of understanding with the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant for entering into a formal development agreement in respect of subject lands and that in pursuance of the said memorandum of understanding, they have received amount of Rs.75,00,000/- from the 2nd respondent. The said memorandum of understanding was entered into on the representation of the petitioners and others to the 2nd respondent that they are absolute owners in possession of the lands. Subsequently, the said representation of the petitioners was found to be incorrect in view of pending land grabbing proceedings in respect of some of those lands and also pendency of writ proceedings in this Court, in that regard. Thereupon, both the parties have entered into cancellation of memorandum of understanding on 16.06.2008 and one of the “owners” by name V.Narayana Rao issued three cheques in favour of the 2nd respondent towards repayment of the advance amount received under the original memorandum of understanding. The said three cheques were dishonoured when the 2nd respondent presented them for encashment. The 2nd respondent also is stated to have issued statutory notice to the said V.Narayana Rao under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). At that stage, V.Narayana Rao expired. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed the present private complaint before the Magistrate alleging the above offences against all the parties to the original memorandum of understanding. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the case is one of civil nature and that at best, facts of the case may constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Act against late V.Narayana Rao, with which the petitioners are not concerned. On perusal of allegations in the private complaint/FIR and documents filed along with it, I am of the opinion that even though genesis of the case is a civil understanding between the parties, the allegations attract the penal sections of law, for which the case was registered against the petitioners and others. It is further submitted by the petitioners’ counsel that, subsequent to registration of the case, the parties have entered into compromise and that the petitioners have repaid the advance amount to the 2nd respondent and that therefore there was no necessity to continue criminal proceedings by way of FIR against the petitioners. All the above penal sections of law are compoundable offences. In case the petitioners have satisfied claim of the 2nd respondent under the cancellation of memorandum of understanding, then it is open for both the parties to approach the police and state the facts relating to compounding of the offences/case in between them. In such an event, the Investigating Officer shall record further or subsequent statements of the parties and if satisfied about truth and voluntary nature of compounding of the offences, then the Investigating Officer will drop the proceedings and refer the case. Subject to the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 28th October, 2011. PNV