IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12302 of 2010 Between:- Abrar Hussain …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12302 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner/A-5 in C.C.No.2456 of 2010, on the file of the III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner/A-5, along with others, was prosecuted for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC in C.C.No.897 of 2005. According to the petitioner, he was abroad when the trial of other accused went on and, therefore, he could not attend the Court along with other accused and the case against him was split up and separately numbered as C.C.No.2456 of 2010. 4. It is not disputed that the main case i.e., C.C.No.446 of 2010 proceeded against A-1 alone and the same ended in acquittal on 23-03-2010. The trial Court in its judgment held as under: - “In spite of granting opportunities by the court, the police, police failed to produce Anish Reddy, injured, Reventh, eye-witness and police also failed to produce Dr.Raja Narasimha, who is the doctor. Police also failed to examine Sudarshan Reddy, who worked as Sub-Inspector of Police. In the absence of evidence of Anish Reddy, evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution and it cannot be said that prosecution proved its case. In my opinion prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused.” 5. It is also not disputed that subsequently proceedings against A-2 were also quashed in C.C.No.2456 of 2010 by this Court by order dated 08-09-2010 in Crl.P.No.8894 of 2010. Since the case against A-1 and A-2 ended in acquittal, it is considered that no purpose would be served by continuing further proceedings in C.C.No.2456 of 2010 against the petitioner/A-5. 6. Hence, by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., further proceedings against the petitioner/A-5 in C.C.No.2456 of 2010, on the file of the III-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th December, 2010 Lrkm.