THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12886 and 13616 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners-Accused Nos. 8 and 10 filed these two criminal petitions with a prayer to quash the charge sheet in S.C. No. 637 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 435 read with 149 of I.P.C. and 3 & 5 of TADA Act. According to the prosecution, on 20.1.1992 at about 2.30 p.m., A1 to A4 along with seven other accused in the case have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly being armed with fire arms and axes and stopped the lorry bearing No. APM 2148, which was transporting teak wood at the outskirts of Renigunta Village and broke open the diesel tanker and poured diesel on the lorry and wood and set them on fire, resulting in damage to the lorry and the wood. On the basis of a complaint made by Madadi Prabhakar Reddy, P.W.1, a case in Crime No. 6 of 1992 was registered and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet on 18.12.1992 against eleven accused. However, Accused No.11 in the case died in an encounter during the interrignum and hence the case against him stood abated. As A5 to A10 were absconding, the case against them was split up and they were tried separately. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were tried by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar in S.C. No. 5 of 1993. The learned Sessions Judge, after due trial, acquitted A1 to A4 on the ground that there was no evidence on record to show that A1 to A4 have committed the alleged offences. Petitioners, who are A8 and A10 and who are being tried in S.C. No. 637 of 2002, which is pending on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Jagitial filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in the aforesaid S.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since A1 to A4, who are the main accused were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 5 of 1993, no purpose would be served in proceeding against the petitioners and the same benefit should be extended to them. He further submitted that the pendency of the case against the petitioners herein amounts to abuse of process of law, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners also be quashed. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 12886 of 2010, dated 24.12.2010. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the acquittal of co-accused in a separate trial cannot be made basis for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein, who are being separately tried. He also submitted that the petitioners herein have absconded for a long time and now are facing trial in S.C.No.637 of 2002. Admittedly, in criminal cases, each and every case has to be decided on its own merits. It is to be noticed that on an earlier occasion, this Court allowed Criminal Petition No. 1820 of 2011, while relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar[1][4], Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. V. Rajvir Industrial Ltd.[2][5] and State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi[3][6], wherein the Apex Court laid down certain principles for quashing of criminal charge/complaint/proceedings while invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, in the present case, the acquittal of co-accused was not on any technical grounds, but it was on the ground that all the witnesses have categorically deposed that some unknown extremists have stopped the lorry and set fire to it. Further, P.W.10, who is the eye-witness to the occurrence of the incident also has categorically stated in his evidence that some unidentified persons have terrified the driver of the lorry and stopped it forcibly and set fire to it. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused are the persons, who have set fire to the lorry and wood and who committed the alleged offences. Therefore, while following the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court and the principles enunciated therein for quashing of the proceedings, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the case against the petitioners in S.C.No.637 of 2002 is an abuse of process of law and further proceeding with the trial against the petitioners is a futile exercise. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/Accused Nos.8 and 10 in S.C.No.637 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, are hereby quashed. The petitioners/Accused Nos. 8 and 10 are set at liberty, if they are not required in any other case. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 8th November, 2011 pnb [1][4] (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 1 [2][5] (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 678 [3][6] (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 568