IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.10730 OF 2010 Between:- Maddula Ratna Kumar …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.10730 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner/A-2 in C.C.No.545 of 2010, on the file of the II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the records. 3. On a complaint given by one Balam Nagaraju, the police registered a case against A-1 for the offences under Section 304-A IPC and Section 3 read with 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the prosecution, on 12-08-2009 at about 07-00 p.m., when the deceased M.Janaki Devi was sweeping the house near railway gate, A-1, driving a scooter bearing No.AP 37 AE 1388 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her, as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries and the complainant Nagaraju, having witnessed the accident, telephoned to 108 ambulance and also informed the husband of the deceased and shifted the deceased to Bhimavaram hospital where she died on the night of 12/13-08-2009, while undergoing treatment. It is further stated that A-1 was not having a driving licence. The police have, therefore, registered the case against A-1 in Cr.No.99 of 2009 and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against him for the offences under Section 304-A IPC and Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A-2 is stated to be the owner of the vehicle. As seen from the charge sheet, A-2 was added as an accused in pursuance of the remarks of the learned Magistrate that the owner of the vehicle should also be added as accused. 4. Admittedly, even according to the prosecution case, it was only A-1 who was driving the vehicle without licence and it was A-1 who caused the accident on account of rash and negligent driving. A-2 was admittedly not at the scene nor is it the case of the prosecution that A-2 was in any way involved or concerned with the accident. It is not understandable as to how the learned Magistrate could give a direction to implead the owner of the vehicle also as an accused and arraying petitioner/A-2 as an accused in the case, is totally unwarranted, as the ingredients of the alleged offences are not at all attracted to the petitioner. Neither the complaint nor the charge sheet discloses any allegation against the petitioner/A-2 nor do they attribute any overt acts to the petitioner/A-2. 5. It is well settled that when it is not shown either in the complaint or in the charge sheet that any offence is committed by a person arrayed as an accused, continuance of further proceedings against him is clearly an abuse of process of law and in such circumstances the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked. The present case is imminently suited for invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioner/A-2 in C.C.No.545 of 2010, on the file of the II- Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Bhimavaram and they are accordingly quashed. The proceedings insofar as A-1 are concerned can, however, go on in C.C.No.545 of 2010. 6. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed accordingly. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd November, 2010 Lrkm.