JUDGMENT

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN J.:— Special leave granted.

2. We heard learned counsel for both the parties for a considerable length of time and waded through the entire records. The High Court by its impugned order has expressed its disinclination to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against the appellant for an offence under S. 448, IPC and dismissed his petition on the ground that a perusal of the documents submitted under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has spelt out a prima facie case against the appellant for his trial for the said offence. It transpires from the records that this appellant along with two others are put up for the trial. The charge levelled against the other two accused persons is under Ss. 448 and 380, IPC while the charge against the appellant is only under S. 448, IPC as aforementioned. Be it noted that though S. 448 is a summons case as the appellant is put on joint trial along with the other two accused against whom the charges are framed inclusive of a warrant case under S. 380, IPC, a separate charge has been framed against his appellant.

3. This prosecution is instituted by a complaint given by one K. D. Narayan, Director of Sangita Esta