JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner herein seeks
to quash the proceedings initiated against
him in sessions Case No.374 of 1998 on the
file of the II Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
(2.)The petitioner is A. 10 in the crime. The respondent-State charge sheeted as many
as 11 accused in the Court of III Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad City, for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 147,148,
452, 436, 324 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Sections
25(lXa) and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. It
was shown in the charge sheet that the
accused Nos.8, 9, 10 and 11 were
absconding. Initially while issuing process
to the accused for their appearance before
the Court, non-bailable warrant was ordered
to be issued against the petitioner herein
while taking charge sheet on file as PRC
No. 13 of 1995. Since the warrant could not
be executed, the case against the petitioner
was separated. Initially the case against A2,
A3, and All was separated and was
committed to the Court of Session. The
Sessions Court after having taken cognizance
of the same in S.C .No, 111 of 1996 conducted
trial and that ended in acquittal. Later, the
case against A.1, A.4 and A.10 was registered
as PRC No.3 of 1996. That too was
committed to the Court of Session and the
Sessions Court in S.C,No.202 of 1998 after
having conducted trial acquitted A.1 and
A.4 and convicted A. 10. The case against
the petitioner remained on the file of the III
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, as PRC
No.22 of 1997.
(3.)The petitioner herein surrendered before the Court and the case against him
too was committed to the Court of Session
in S.C.No.374 of 1998, which is pending on
the file of the II Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The petitioner
now seeks to quash the proceedings on the
premise that according to the averments
made in the charge sheet, there were
only three eye-witnesses to the occurrence
and that all the three eye-witnesses during
the course of trial in S.C.No.lll of 1996
deposed that they did not know who the
assailants were and none of them mentioned
the name of the petitioner herein even in
their previous statements and that the only
allegation against the petitioner was the
inadmissible confession of the co-accused
who had already been acquitted by the
Sessions Court. It is thus obvious that the
petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in
S.C.No.374 of 1998 on the file of the
II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad, on the ground that there was no
legal evidence against him and, therefore,
there is no point in allowing the proceeding
to continue, which is nothing but an abuse
of the process of the Court, particularly
in view of the acquittal of the other accused
in the case.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.