THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3868 OF 2011 DATED: 01.07.2011 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the further proceedings in S.C.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent- State. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner-A9 along with others is accused of the offences under Section 420 IPC and Sections 3, 5 (2) and 6 of the A.P.Money Circulation Schemes (Prohibition) Act and Section 5 of the A.P.Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act. Even according to the prosecution, it was A1, who made representation to the complainant regarding the scheme i.e. Swiss cash Systematic Investment Plan (SIP)-25 by promising regular returns of Rs.11,250/- per month for a period of one year over an investment of Rs.50,000/-. According to the complainant, believing the words of A1 by name Hanumantha Reddy complainant also joined the scheme and invested the amount, but he failed to receive any returns and therefore gave a complaint against A1. No specific allegation is made against the petitioner-A9 attributing any role to him in running the scheme or collection of any amounts from the complainant or in the matter of the alleged default in refunding the amounts or paying the returns. The only reference to the petitioner-A9 in the complaint is that the petitioner-A9 also joined as a member in the scheme and A1 asked the complainant to cross check with the petitioner-A9 and one Ramana about the genuineness of the scheme and also the benefits thereof and the complainant enquired Ramana, who confirmed about the scheme and its benefits. It is further stated that the said Ramana told the complainant that the petitioner-A9 also subscribed to the scheme and he too got the monthly benefit out of the scheme. Though it is stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner-A9 collected the amount from the subscribers along with others acting as agents of A1, no such allegation is made in the complaint nor is it the case of the complainant that he paid any amount to the petitioner-A9. It is not disputed that A1 entered into compromise with the complainant and thereafter filed Crl.P.No.8728 of 2008 for quashing the prosecution against him and this Court by order, dated 14.07.2009, allowed the said petition duly noting the factum of compromise and quashed further proceedings against A1. Thus when the proceedings against A1 stood quashed on account of his compromise with the complainant, nothing remains to be proceeded against the petitioner-A9, especially when no specific allegation is made against the petitioner-A9 nor any overt acts attributed to him pertaining to the alleged offences. In the circumstances, it is held that continuance of further proceedings in S.C.No.1 of 2010 against the petitioner-A9 are only unnecessary and would only amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, further proceedings against the petitioner-A9 in S.C.No.1 of 2010 are held liable to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed. 4. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st July, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B /o Tsy