HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P.No. 4763 of 2008 O R D E R: The point that arises for determination in this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is whether Crime No.374 of 2008 registered for offences under Sections 447, 420 and 427 IPC in Vanasthalipuram Police Station should be quashed. The point arises in the following circumstances: The two petitioners herein are said to be involved in the above case along with a third person who is not before this Court. Sri K.Vasanth Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners’ counsel says that the 1st petitioner is now dead. Hence, it follows that proceedings against him may abate and it is for the police to take a decision in the matter. Then coming to the 2nd petitioner, the contention of Sri K.Vasanth Rao is that his name is not shown at all in the F.I.R. and, therefore, the proceedings against him should be quashed. There is no force in this contention. In the course of hearing, Sri K.Vasanth Rao himself filed a copy of the remand case dairy signed on 07.07.2009 by the concerned Investigating Officer which pertains to the remand of the 1st petitioner who is, of course, now dead. In the said remand report, the 2nd petitioner is shown as A.3 while the deceased-1st petitioner herein is shown as A.1. There is another person by name Satyanarayana and he is shown as A.2 in the said remand report. Both A.2 and A.3 are shown as absconding. The remand case dairy shows that all the three accused ie., petitioners herein and the aforesaid Satyanarayana formed a Weaker Section Welfare Association and took possession of some Government land under permission and illegally occupied some other Government land and took steps to sell away the same. The report has been lodged by the concerned Deputy Collector. It may be noted that a perusal of the above remand report and the F.I.R. would show that the allegations made therein do disclose the offences. Thus, this not a case where it can be said that the mere allegations or averments made in the F.I.R. do not disclose any offence at all. Hence, in my opinion this is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings in the F.I.R. against the 2nd petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in Ajay Mitra v State of M.P. and others[1] and contended that basing on the principle laid down in the said decision these proceedings should be quashed. A perusal of this decision would show that it merely reiterates the settled principle that an F.I.R. can be quashed only when the allegations in the same do not disclose an offence but not otherwise. That is not the case here and the contents of the remand C.D. and the F.I.R. have already been mentioned supra. Hence, this decision cannot help the 2nd petitioner. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the point is decided in the negative and this petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is still at large, he can surrender before the concerned Court or even to the concerned police and he shall be dealt with according to law by the said authorities. It is also made clear that nothing in this order shall prevent the police from taking him to custody if he does not surrender. ______________​____ N.RAVI SHANKAR,J 18th March, 2011. PNV [1] 2003(1) ALD (Crl.) 644 (SC)