THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9798 OF 2021

ORDER

Heard Sri Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B. Krishna, learned Counsel for the

2nd respondent, and learned Public Prosecutor.

2. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.1094 of 2019 pending on the file of District &

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

3. The petitioner herein is A-14. Offences alleged against the petitioner herein are under sections 212, 302 and 109 of IPC.

[

4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein/A-14 are that, he is resident of Boduppal and working as an advocate clerk. He knows A-1 since last 10 years and he is guiding A-1 in all issues relating to Court and other matters. A case in Crime No.844 of 2018 was registered against A-1 in Police Station Medipally, for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 509, 504, 448, r/w 34 IPC, on 03.11.2018. Thereafter, A-1 requested A-14 to file a writ petition challenging the said crime through an Advocate. Accordingly, the petitioner herein filed a writ petition through a Lawyer. A-1 informed A-14 that he is facing financial crisis in his Login Media business, and investors which include deceased and others have been forcing A-1 to clear off the liabilities.

4.1 On 21.11.2018, after the incident, A-1 telephonically spoke to the petitioner/A14 expressing his desire to surrender to police, who suggested him to hide. After the incident, A-1 informed his every movement to the petitioner/A-14 about killing of deceased. CDR details furnished by LW.43 shows the said version between A-1 and A-14 before and after the commission of offence. A-1 proceeded to Chengicherla village by XUV Car and contacted A-13 over phone and informed him to come down to Chengicherla, who came along with A-12 by TS Jupiter TS-070GE-2812. Thus, the petitioner herein along with A-11 to A-13 and A-15 conspired with A-1 and other accused and committed the murder of deceased and they have cooperated A-1 in commission of offence. Therefore, committed the offences punishable under Sections 212, 302 r/w 109 IPC.

5. Sri Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The petitioner never cooperated with A- 1. There is no specific charge/allegation levelled against the petitioner herein. The allegations levelled against the petitioner herein are bald in nature. Even according to the respondent/police, the petitioner came into picture only after murder of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner by no stretch of imagination can be charged under Section 302 IPC when he had no knowledge of the alleged murder. To attract charge under Section 212 of IPC, there must be an offender who has to be harboured. Until and unless A-1 is convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, he will not become an offender as he is presently only an accused. To attract the offence under Section 212 of IPC, it is necessary to establish the commission of offence, harbouring or concealing the person known or believed to be the offender and further such concealment must be with the intention of screening him from legal punishment. The same are lacking in the present case. According to him, the police have implicated the petitioner herein in a false case. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein/A14 in S.C. No. 1094 of 2019. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/A- 14 has also relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of H.P.1; He also relied upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Mukesh²; .

He also relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court reported in S. Dhanavel Vs. State Inspector of Police³

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for 2^nd responden