THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2135 OF 2010 DATED:01-12-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of further investigation in C.C.No.1/FD/2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent-State. None appeared for the 2nd respondent though served with notices. Perused the records. 3. 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur against the petitioners-A1 and A2 alleging offence under Section 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and the learned Sessions Judge referred the same to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Thereupon, the Station House Officer, Lalapet (L & O) police station, Guntur registered First Information Report in Cr.No.45 of 2008 and after investigation filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance in C.C.No.1/FD/2010 by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have entered into compromise with the 2nd respondent and the amount due to the 2nd respondent had been paid away and 2nd respondent also passed a receipt for receipt of the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claim and the 2nd respondent also addressed a letter to the Station House Officer, Lalapet (L & O) police station, Guntur to the effect that he is withdrawing the complaint which he gave without knowledge that the company has settled the claims of the depositors. However, police have filed charge sheet ignoring the letter of the 2nd respondent withdrawing the complaint. 5. Petitioners have filed a copy of the compromise deed and the receipt of the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent to the police. In spite of service of notice, 2nd respondent has not appeared before the Court either in person or through counsel. The averments in the petition and the contents of the above supporting documents filed as material papers would therefore virtually remain unchallenged. 6. In the circumstances, in view of the compromise entered into between the parties and the 2nd respondent having received the amount due to him and chosen to withdraw the complaint, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioners. It is therefore considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings in C.C.No.1/FD/2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur and they are accordingly quashed. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed as stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st December, 2010 Tsy