The petitioner is figuring as the 9th accused in PRC No.23 of 2011 onthe file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil.The second respondent herein Mrs.Latha who is the sister in lawof the deceased Peruvilai Mohan is the defacto complainant.The firstrespondent took up investigation and filed final report against as many as 10accused.The petitioner herein is figuring as the 9th accused.As per thefinal report, the petitioner has been charged with the offences underSections 109 and 302, 120 B r/w 34 of IPC.As many as 28 List Witnesses are there.Their statements recorded under Sections 161 of Cr.PC have also beenenclosed in the typed set of papers.The final report was taken on file bythe learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil and the case is stillpending at the stage of committal proceedings.It is stated that the 10thaccused is still absconding and that therefore the committal proceedingscould not be completed.Contending that there is no legally admissibleevidence against him, the 9th accused has filed this Criminal OriginalPetition to quash the impugned proceedings insofar as he is concerned.2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side) for the prosecution.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that excepting theconfession of the co-accused namely A1 to A3, there is absolutely no othermaterial available against him.This Court posed a direct question to thelearned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) to confirm the veracity of thesubmission made by the petitioner's counsel.In response thereto, theprosecution has filed a written submission.The written submission sets outthe antecedent facts that led to the registration of Crime No.21 of 2010 onthe file of the Vadaseri Police Station.4.It is stated that there was a dispute between the deceased PeruvilaiMohan and the 10th accused with regard to taking action for collecting feesfor car parking at Kanyakumari.Since the 10th accused apprehended that thedeceased was planning to murder him, to preempt him, the 10th accused took the lead and murdered him.It is further stated that the petitioner hereinand the 10th accused are friends and that it was the petitioner whocontacted the first accused and arranged a meeting and also provided all thefacilities for committing the murder.5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the prosecution placedreliance on the statement made by the defacto complainant which has been enclosed at Page No.8 of the typed set of the papers.Accordingly, theimpugned prosecution in in PRC No.23 of 2011 on the file of the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil is quashed insofar as the petitioner isconcerned.It is further directed that the police shall secure theabsconding accused soon so that the committal proceedings get concluded early.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District shall monitor thisaspect.10.This Criminal Original Petition is allowed as indicated above.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The Inspector of Police, Vadaseri Police Station, Kanyakumari District.2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code