HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3143 of 2007 O R D E R: This is the 2nd journey of the petitioner to this court in an attempt to get himself absolved from being prosecuted for the offence U/Sec. 147, 148, 149, 307 r/w. 120-B IPC. & Sec. 25-A and 27 of Indian Arms Act. 2. The petitioner herein along with other accused were charge sheeted before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada City in crime No. 337 /2004 of L & O Krishna Lanka P.S. Vijayawada City for the offence punishable U/Secs. 147, 148, 149, 307 r/w. 120-B IPC and Sec. 25A and 27 of Indian Arms Act. Earlier, the petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P.No. 77 of 2006 in SC No. 50 of 2006 on the file of the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Vijayawada, wherein the petitioner herein has been arrayed as A- 7, seeking discharge U/Sec. 227 Cr.P.C. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed the said application by order dated 15-06-2006. The petitioner approached this Court by filing a revision being Crl.R.C. No. 1105 of 2006. The said revision came to be dismissed on 21.07.2006. The relevant portion of the order passed in the above revision reads thus: “… Criminal conspiracy will be held in secrecy. Therefore, normally the prosecution could not bring direct evidence. Conspiracy can also be inferred from the circumstances of the case. A-1 And A3 are hired assassins. There is allegation that there was common rivalry between LW-2 Katragadda Naga Malleswara Rao and A-6 and A-7. It is alleged that A-6 was the main accused in the murder of L.W.2’s brother. It is further alleged that A-7 used the services of Rawoof a hired killer and rowdy sheeter of Prakasam District with the help of A-1 and A2 to liquidate L.W.2. A-7 issued requite money to A1 to A4 through A1 with the funds of A7, A1 and A2 procured two revolvers and on 26-08-2004 at 9 a.m. A1 and A2 suddenly whipped out the weapons and started firing at LW-2 Babu. They shot four rounds on Babu. Then Babu fell down and sustained bullet injuries. It is further alleged that after the commission of offence, A1 made phone call to A6 cell No. 9440497240 and A7 cell No. 9848112999. On the advise of A6 and A7, the accused absconded from Vijayawada. There is no need for A7 to contact A1 and A2 after the commission of offence. There is evidence on record to show that cell phone bearing No. 9848112999 stands in the name of Koganti Radhakrishna who is no other than the brother of A-7 and A-7 is using the cell phone. The list of incoming and outgoing calls used by A1,A2 and A7 seized from the possession of the concerned officials are also examined. Therefore, in my consideration opinion making contact by A1 andA2 after the incident to the present petitioner for which he has no reason to make calls to them and with reference to the statement of LW2, prima facie offence under Section 120-B IPC is made out. Therefore, question of discharge does not arise. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Any observations made in this revision are only for the purpose of disposal of the present revision.” 3. Hence, the petitioner-A7 approached this court invoking the jurisdiction U/Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings against him in SC No. 50 of 2006 on the file of the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vijayawada. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent -State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that except the confession statement of A-1 and A2, there is no evidence connecting A-1 and A2 with A-7 as to the commission of offence. A further submission has been made that the confession of the co-accused is inadmissible evidence and once the confession of the co-accused is eschewed, there is no other material to connect the present petitioner with the commission of the offence. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on G.Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P.[1] and on Keki Hormusji Gharda and others Vs. Mehervan Rustom Irani [2] 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant submits that the police during the course of investigation collected the telephone calls emanating A-1 and A2 and the said telephonic calls establish the link between A-1, A-2 and A-7-petitioner herein and therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner –A7 in exercise of powers U/sec. 482 Cr.P.C. 7. The scope and exercise of power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice was set out in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal[3]. A note of caution however added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. 8. The petitioner herein has been charged for the offence U/Sec. 120-B IPC., apart from other cognizable offences. I have gone through the charge sheet filed in Cr.No. 337 of 2004 relatable to SC No. 50 of 2006 on the file of the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vijayawada. LWs.19 and 20 namely Surat Kumar and V.Sujana are the Managers of Idea Cellular Net Work and Reliance Info Com. respectively, L.W.19 stated to be the witness regarding the call registers/extracts in respect of the cell phone Nos. 9848655023, 9848470745, 9848429806 and 9848112999 and LW-20 stated to be the witness regarding the call registers/extracts in respect of the Mobile Phone Nos. 3130734, 359999 and 3344334. Calls emanating from these cell phones establish the contacts between A-1 and A-2 on the one hand and the petitioner-A7 on the other handc. Therefore it cannot be said that there is no semblance of evidence to connect the petitioner-A7 with the commission of offence. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-A7 in SC No. 50 of 2006 on the file of VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vijayawada. 10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 13-04-2007 shall stand vacated. ______________ 29-07-2010 Mjl/* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3143 of 2007 DATED: 29-07-2010 Mjl/* [1] (2000)2 Supreme Court Cases 636 [2] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 475 [3] AIR 1992 SC 604 = 1992 Crl.L.J 527