IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 6876 of 2009 Between: 1 Kocherla Koteswara Rao, S/o. Prasada Rao, Bukkavari Street, Mandapeta, E.G.District. 2 Kocherla Nageswara Rao, S/o. Prasada Rao, R/o. Matham Veedhi, Mandapeta, E.G.District. 3 Kocherla durga Prasad,. S/o. Prasada Rao, R/o. Matham Veedhi, Mandapeta, E.G.District. 4 Kocherla Satyavathi, W/o. Late Prasada Rao, Mandapet, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Kocherla Padmaja, W/o. Suresh @ Padma,D/o.Nidadavolu Nageswara Rao, R/o. D.No. 19-11-14, Undavalli Vari Veedhi, Mutchimilli Road, Ramachandrapuram, E.G.Dist. 2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad (Through the Station House Officer, Mandapeta Police Station, Mandapeta, E.G.District) .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the proceedings in SC.No. 293 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Asst.Sessions Judge, Ramachandrapuram, E.G.District The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.LAKSHMANA SARMA, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY Crl.P.No. 6876 of 2009 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri C. Pravin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The allegation against A-1 is of throwing the victim from first floor of a building with an intention to kill her. Thus, it cannot be said that the offence under section 307 IPC is not made out. May be the above allegation is not against the present petitioners, who are A-2 to A-5. Still when the case arises out of the same transaction, it cannot be separated. Consequently the petition is dismissed. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. November 20, 2009. *BVS