( 1 ) THE petitioners who are the accused in c. C. (SR) No. 2025 of 2000 on the file of the judicial First Class Magistrate East and North ranga Reddy District and in Crime No. 55 of 2000 on the file of the Kushaiguda Police station, seek quashing of the proceedings by invoking inherent powers of this court.

( 2 ) BACKGROUND of the facts which are necessary for appreciation of the contentions are as follows: the first petitioner is the President of bhavanarishi Co-operative House Building society Limited, Hyderabad at the relevant time. The said society has purchased the land in question under an agreement of sale in the year 1984. Subsequently, an irrevocable general Power of Attorney was executed by kasula Balaiah i. e. , father of the 2nd respondent, who is de facto complainant in favour of Suryanarayana Murthy and T. V. Rama Rao, office bearers of the society and padma Rao vide registered GPA No. 1578/87 dt 16-11-1987. Pursuant to the said GPA the 2nd petitioner executed sale deed in favour of the society in respect of the land in question. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent de facto complainant and his brothers said to have sold away the property in question to third parties namely Taj Constructions and others. It is also alleged that the petitioners are not aware of the death of Kasula Balaiah and there is no notice to that effect. As matters stood thus, the society has also filed a suit o. S. No. 485 of 1997 on the file of the i Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranga reddy District against Kasula Balaiah, father of the complainant in respect of the land in question and an order of interim injunction is said to have been granted in the said suit. The society is also said to have filed LGC no. 23/2000 on the file of the Special Court under A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act against the complainant and other third parties, who alleged to have purchased the land. Thereafter, a private complaint was said to have been presented by the 2nd respondent before the Judicial First Class magistrate, East and North, Ranga Reddy district and the same has been forwarded to the police and the concerned police i. e. , kushaiguda Police registered it as Crime no. 55 of 2000 under Section 420 IPC and have taken up investigation. As matters stood thus, the petitioners rushed to this court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

( 3 ) SRI K. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the proceedings on two grounds. Firstly, he contends that irrevocable General power of Attorney has not come to an end as some more interest is there for the agent. The second contention is that the matter is seized by the Civil Court and the Land Grabbing court and it is civil in nature. He has drawn my attention to Section 202 and also illustration (a), of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Reliance is also placed on a decision reported in Seth Loon Karan v. I. E. John and also para 4 of the said judgment.

( 4 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor however, contends that it is not a case where inherent powers have to be exercised and General power of Attorney will come to end soon after the death of the executant.

( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent did not advance any arguments before this court.

( 6 ) COMING to the first contention canvassed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Section 202 of the Indian contract Act, 1872 reads as follows: "202. Termination of agency where agent has an interestin subject-matter:-Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. Illustrations: (A) A gives authority to B to sell A s land, and to pay himself, out of the proceeds, the debts due to him from A. A cannot revoke this authority, nor can it be terminated by his insanity or death. (B) A consigns 10,000 (sic. 1000} bales of cotton to B, who has made advances to him on such cotton, and desi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document