THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4216 OF 2010 DATED: 24-11-2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing all further proceedings in Cr.No.13 of 2010 of Gudihathnoor police station, Adilabad District. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-complainant. Perused the record. 3. Based on a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, the Station House Officer, Gudihathnoor police station registered a case in Cr.No.13 of 2010 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 337 and 201 IPC and Sections 25 (1) (1-B) (a) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 4. According to the complainant, on 10-11-2009, the complainant, who is an auto driver, has taken the accused 1 to 5 for hunting rabbits and that accidentally the bullet hit the leg of the complainant while the rifle was being made ready for hunting by A1. The only allegation made against the petitioners is that A6, who is related to A1, has taken the complainant to A7 and A8, who are Medical Practitioners, and rendered treatment. Even as per the averments in the complaint, the expenses for the treatment were borne by the accused. The complainant alleges that the injury did not heal completely and that he was promised to be paid Rs.20,000/- but the same was not paid by the accused. 5. A perusal of the complaint does not disclose any offence insofar as the petitioners-A6 to A8 are concerned and the thrust of the allegations are against the other accused. Even the ingredients of the offence under Section 201 IPC are not prima facie attracted in respect of the petitioners-A6 to A8. 6. It is well settled that when the complaint does not disclose any offence at all, further proceedings against the petitioner only amounts to abuse of process of law. 1st petitioner-A6 is said to have admitted the complainant in the hospital of A7 and A8, and A7 and A8 are said to have provided medical treatment to the complainant. The said role played by the petitioners-A6 to A8 does not in any way amount to secreting evidence within the meaning of Section 201 IPC. As the averments of the complaint do not disclose even prima facie case against the petitioners- A6 to A8, it is held that further proceedings in pursuance of the First Information Report insofar as the petitioners-A6 to A8, is unsustainable. It is therefore considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash further proceedings in Cr.No.13 of 2010 against the petitioners-A6 to A8 and the same are accordingly quashed. It is however made clear that the investigation in respect of the other accused can go on. 7. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th November, 2010. Tsy