HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD Crl.P.No.1257 of 2009 O R D E R: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.314 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. Heard the counsel for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of the State. The averments made in the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.314 of 2008 are that on 23.11.2006, the Assistant Commissioner (Gr-1), working in the office of Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Government of India, Ministry of Coal, Hyderabad lodged a written report with Saroornagar Police Station against the petitioner and seven others. The report alleges that the Andhra Bank, Bhupalpalli Branch, Warangal, informed their office that the Bank had received two cheques from the office of CMPFO drawn on Andhra Bank, Kothapet Branch, Hyderabad in the name of B.Lingaiah, Senior Mining Sardar working at KTK-6 incline of Singareni Company Limited, and they have doubted that those cheques have been obtained by fraud. Then the office of CMPFO verified and found that no person by name B.Lingaiah is working at KTK-6 incline of Singareni Co.Ltd., and the application form for withdrawal of ledger accounts are also false. They found A-1 to be indulged in the alleged offence and the transactions are being done in the name of A-2 to A-7 through different bank accounts. The total amount siphoned from the CMPFO is Rs.1,09,88,900/-. The recovered amount is Rs.63,06,900/- and Rs.46,82,000/- is yet to be recovered. A-1 played a key role in fabricating, cheating and forging documents in the name of A-2 to A-7 with an intention to grab money. The petitioner-A-8 is the wife of A-1 encouraged her husband to earn money in easy methods. Therefore, as per the averments made in the charge sheet, the allegation made against the petitioner, who is the wife of the main culprit in the above said offence, is that she knowingly encouraged her husband to do the alleged offence to earn money in easy method and she is liable for punishment under Section 109 of IPC. Section 109 of IPC reads as under: “Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence”. Section 107 of the IPC deals with abatement and it reads as under: “A person abets in doing of a thing, who firstly instigates any person to do that thing, or secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, in doing of that thing.” Therefore, in order to attract Section 109 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the petitioner instigated A.1 for committing the offence. But the averments made in the charge sheet does not disclose any instigation made by A.8 to A.1 for committing the offence. Therefore, the averments made in the charge sheet does not disclose the commission of offence under Section 109 against A.8. Hence, she is entitled for quashing of the proceedings initiated against her in C.C.No.314 of 2008. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.314 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. _____________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD 31st December, 2010 PNV