ORDER:

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed by A11 to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.35 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

2. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows:

In Crime No.208 of 2022, charge sheet has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 and 212 IPC read with 149 IPC against A1 to A12 by Nandyal II Town Police Station of Nandyal District. The accusation is that A1 to A8 and A9 on 07.08.2022 at 9 PM, kidnapped the deceased, Guduru Surenderanath, forcibly pushing him into the auto of Shaik Rasool (LW5) and committed murder of the deceased in the outskirts of Nandyal town. The main allegation against the petitioner/A11 is that he harboured the accused No.1 after commission of the offence and thus, he is liable for punishment under Section 212 IPC. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the material on record as against the petitioner does not constitute the offence under Section 212 IPC, and therefore, the proceedings against him are to be quashed.

4. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the only evidence available against the petitioner is the so called confession of the co-accused/A1 which says that after commission of the offence, A1 and others crossed Atmakur- Mahanandi junction and going towards Atmakur in a vehicle and reached their house where his maternal uncle, i.e., the petitioner was informed about the murder of the constable, Surendranath @ Surendra committed by them, and thereby, the petitioner instructed A1 to immediately go to Hyderabad and assured that he would stay there and do all the needful and pass on the information relating to the police frequently and would also arrange for bail in consultation with a lawyer. Therefore, he vehemently contends that such a statement which does not disclose any harbouring and that too inadmissible and weak piece of evidence would not establish the case against the petitioner, and therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law, and therefore, the proceedings need to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that as per Section 39 CrPC, every person has an obligation to inform the commission of a cognizable offence and the statement referred by the petitioner which discloses that the petitioner had knowledge of the commission of cognizable offence by A1. He further submitted that apart from the statement referred by the petitioner, there is also ample evidence to show the participation of the petitioner to harbour A1 and in this regard, he referred to the call data of phone calls made by A1 by using his mother’s cell phone to talk to the petitioner. He further submitted that it is a nascent stage to terminate the proceedings against the petitioner where there is evidence to show that he has aided in harbouring A1 and submitted to dismiss criminal petition. He also submitted that confession of a co-accused is admissible in evidence as per Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.

6. It is also submitted by him that the powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to scuttle the proceedings at the threshold. For the purpose of appreciation of the submissions made by both parties, it is apropos to mention the provision under Section 212 IPC which reads as follows:

“212. Harbouring offender.— Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment;

if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine;

if punishable with imprisonment for life, or w