IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIEETH DAY OF NOVEMBER THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.11096 OF 2010 Between:- B.Rosi Reddy …Petitioner A n d The State, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.11096 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.1 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner/A-2, along with others, is accused of offences under Sections 409, 420 and 464 IPC and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 in C.C.No.7 of 2005. The case against the petitioner/A-2 was split up and separately numbered as C.C.No.1 of 2008. The proceedings in C.C.No.7 of 2005 were continued against A-1, A-3 and A-4 and it resulted in acquittal of all the accused by judgment dated 09-04- 2009. As seen from the said judgment, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged. It was also observed in the said judgment that except the averments in the charge sheet, nothing is placed before the Court to establish that A-1, A- 3 and A-4 along with A-2 incorporated the company under the Companies Act under the name of Dhanakrishi Financial and Industrial Investments Private Limited. It was further held that in the absence of any books or other receipts, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion that the accused collected money from the subscribers and failed to pay the money. It was also found that there was no whisper in the testimony of PWs.1 to 3 that the accused made false promise and collected huge amount of money and misappropriated the same. 4. The reasoning mentioned in the judgment in C.C.No.7 of 2005 for acquitting A-1, A-3 and A-4 holds good in respect of petitioner/ A-2 also, as he stands on the same footing as that of the other accused. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2 would submit that the petitioner was not served with any summons and he was not aware of pendency of C.C.No.7 of 2005 and he was bed-ridden because of brain haemorrhage. 6. In the circumstances, in view of fact that there has been absolutely no evidence placed on record in C.C.No.7 of 2005 to establish the guilt of the accused, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of other accused in the case, it is considered that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioner/A-2 in the split up C.C.No.1 of 2008. 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 against the petitioner/A-2 in C.C.No.1 of 2008, as continuance of the said proceedings would only amount to waste of precious time of the Court. 7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and further proceedings against the petitioner/A-2 in C.C.No.1 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, are hereby quashed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th November, 2010 Lrkm.