THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.NO.4793 OF 2009 ORDER This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner- A1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash further proceedings in C.C.No.400 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the records. Second respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner and two others on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, alleging offences under Sections 420 and 423 IPC and the same was forwarded to the police under Section 156 Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Thereupon, the police registered FIR in Cr.No.274 of 2008 of L&O, Suryaraopet Police Station and after investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and the same was taken cognizance as C.C.No.400 of 2008. According to the complainant, the complainant’s father along with two others has taken land to an extent of 8.88 cents in R.S.No.12 belonging to U.Satyanarayana Raju, U.Kanaka Raju and U.Sitharama Raju on lease and the tenants filed ATC. Nos.5, 6, and 8 of 2002 for declaring them as cultivating tenants and father of the complainant filed ATC No.7 of 2002 for the same relief. It is stated that the landlords filed ATC No.11 of 2002 for eviction. While the matters were pending, the complainant’s father Satyanarayana died, but his LRs were not brought on record in ATC No.7 of 2002. It is stated that the accused was tenant in respect of portion of the land and the petitioner in ATC No.6 of 2002 along with other tenants P.Vijayalakshmi and N.Purnachandra Rao, who were petitioners in ATC 5 of 2002 and ATC No.8 of 2002, entered into a compromise with the landlords and filed a joint memo before the Special Officer-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, whereunder they agreed to handover possession of the entire land to the landlords. Accordingly, ATC Nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 of 2002 were dismissed and ATC No.11 of 2002 filed by the landlords was ordered directing the tenants to deliver vacant possession of the respective lands to the landlords. In the said compromise, the petitioner herein appears to have entered into a settlement with the landlords in respect of the land cultivated by the complainant’s father also and handed over possession of the said land to the landlords without impleading the complainant as LR of his father in ATC No.7 of 2002. The petitioner-accused is said to have signed the compromise memo for himself and on behalf of the complainant’s father also though he was no more. The complainant therefore alleges that the petitioner-accused, who was not a tenant in respect of the land covered by ATC No.7 of 2002, has fraudulently and collusively entered into compromise with the landlords and without the knowledge of the complainant and without impleading him, has handed over possession of the lands covered by ATC No.7 of 2002 also to the landlords without any authority to represent the complainant’s father. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was cultivating the land covered by ATC No.7 of 2002 as a sub-lessee of the complainant’s father and therefore, he handed over possession of the said land also to the landlords under the terms of compromise. It is no where stated in the compromise joint memo filed in ATC No.11 of 2002 that the petitioner was cultivating the said land covered by ATC No.7 of 2002 as a sub-lessee. It is not disputed that ATC No.7 of 2002 was dismissed as abated. When that was so, the question of the petitioner herein representing the deceased father of the complainant in the compromise does not arise as admittedly he was not having any authority to so represent. The question as to whether or not the petitioner was a sub-lessee as claimed by him and whether or not he was competent to authorize and enter into compromise on behalf of the deceased father of the complainant or whether or not the compromise was bona fide and genuine, are all matters to be considered on evidence that may be adduced during the course of trial. Prima facie, the ingredients of the alleged offences get attracted as the petitioner has entered into a compromise with the landlords on behalf of a dead person i.e., the deceased father of the complainant in respect of land covered by ATC No.7 of 2002, which was taken on lease by the complainant’s father and for surrender of which land the petitioner had no authority. It is therefore, considered not a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash further proceedings in C.C.No. 400 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J rkk Dated: 8-12-2011