IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.12404 of 2010 Between:- Vanaparthi Venkata Seshachalam …Petitioner A n d 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.12404 of 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing further proceedings against the petitioner/A-6 in C.C.No.653 of 2006, on the file of the II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner/A-6, along with five others, is prosecuted for the offence 409 read with Section 109 IPC in C.C.No.653 of 2006, on the file of the II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tanuku. Earlier, A-2 and A-3 filed Crl.P.No.4503 of 2007 and A-4 and A-5 filed Crl.P.No.2646 of 2007. This Court by common order dated 27-08-2010 quashed further proceedings against A-3, A-4 and A-5 and dismissed the application in respect of A-2. A perusal of the charge sheet would disclose that the allegation against the petitioner/ A-6 and those made against A-3 to A-5 are common. What all alleged against them is that A-2 to A-6 are also responsible as abettors in the commission of the offence committed by A-1. This Court in the earlier order dated 27-08-2010 held that it is no where alleged that A-3, A-4 and A-5 are responsible for the commission of the offence as per explanation to Section 109 IPC to charge them for the offence under Section 409 with the aid of Section 109 IPC and, therefore, the case of A-3 to A-5 is fully covered under guideline No.1 laid down by the Apex Court in STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJANLAL (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 35). The case of petitioner/A-6 also stands on the same footing, as the allegation made against A-3 to A-6 is one and the same. The observations made in the earlier order against A-3 to A-5 would, therefore, hold good in respect of petitioner/A-6 as well. Further, except the alleged conversation made by A-1, there is no incriminating material against petitoner/A-6 in support of the allegation of abetment. 4. In the circumstances, adopting the reasons mentioned in the earlier order dated 27-08-2010 and applying the same to the petitoner/A-6, who stands at par with A-3 to A-5, it is held that further proceedings against the petitioner/A-6 in C.C.No.653 of 2006, on the file of the II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tanuku, are not sustainable and they are liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and are accordingly quashed. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 14th December, 2010 Lrkm.