THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8853 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners (A2 & A3) in C.C.No.1624 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. I have heard Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The brief facts relevant for considering the present petition are that the first accused was arrested at his residence at Vengalrao Nagar by the Sub Inspector of S.R. Nagar Police Station on the basis of a non-bailable warrant issued by the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in C.C.No.6776 of 1990 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thereafter, accused No.1 was handed over to the first respondent for production before the said Court at Chennai. The petitioners (A2 & A3) accompanied accused No.1 on the pretext of arranging train facility and bail for accused No.1 at Chennai. L.W.1, the Constable, was attending the A.C. Coach, the other Constables were attending the General Compartment. When the train started moving from Vijayawada at 9.30 p.m., accused No.1 proceeded towards toilet and thereafter, disappeared from the coach. When L.W.1 wanted to search for him, the petitioners (A2 & A3) dissuaded him from doing so saying that accused No.1 would not go any where and he would be either in toilet or other compartment. However, accused No.1 could not be traced and ultimately, another non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Subsequently, it is stated that on 13.08.1998, accused No.1 approached the Court concerned, which issued the non-bailable warrant, and bailed out by the said Court by cancelling his non-bailable warrant. Subsequently, this Court quashed proceedings against accused No.1 as per the order dated 14.07.2010 in Criminal Petition No.6885 of 2010. The allegation against the petitioners (A2 & A3) is that they committed an offence punishable under Section 225 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {“IPC” for brevity}, and now they seek to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1624 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Section 225 IPC reads as under. Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person:- whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which my extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; Here, the allegation against the petitioners (A2 & A3) is that they misled L.W.1 from making search of accused No.1. Except the said allegation, there was no material for the prosecution to prove the offence under Section 225 IPC. Even if the petitioners dissuaded L.W.1 from making search of accused No.1, the said action would not attract the offence under Section 225 IPC. Further more, when the offence against accused No.1 itself was quashed, it would be sheer abuse of process of law to continue proceedings against the petitioners (A2 & A3), more particularly in view of the fact that there is no possibility for the prosecution to secure conviction against them. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners (A2 & A3) in C.C.No.1624 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 7th September 2010 RRB