Order The petitioner Ramu alias Ramaswamy, who was shown as A12 in the final report dated 12.1.1986 referable to Crime No.361 of 1985 on the file of the Batlagundu Police Station, has filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C, to quash the proceedings against him now pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Anna District at Dindigul in S.C.No.8 of l988. 2. It would be relevant to state at this point of time that the other accused twenty in number were tried before the Court of Sessions, Anna District at Dindigul in S.C.No.58 of 1987 and by the judgment dated 17.2.1988, the trial Court while convicting A2 (Ponram), A3 (Irulappan) and A4 (Ottali) acquitted all the other accused. Even in S.C.No.38 of 1987 charges had been framed against the petitioner but later due to his absence, the case against him was split up and the trial against others proceeded leading to the judgment referred above. 3. In the final report filed in Crime No.361 of 1985 the case against the petitioner is stated as follows: “On 3.7.1985 at 21.00 hours at Eluvampatti village, A1, A2 and A16 conspired to do illegal act due to the previous motive of A21 (Petitioner).” Hence, the petitioner was liable for the offence underSec.302 read with Secs.l49 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It will be necessary at this juncture to state a few facts regarding the incident in question. The accused who were tried in S.CNo.38 of 1987 were mostly Harijans and were engaged in cultivating the lands at Eluvampatti of one Sivakol-unda Chettiar, who was a non-resident, and the cultivation being managed by his wife Mahalakshmi who was the resident of the village. For about 1 1/2 years prior to the occurrence, it is stated that the said Sivakolundu Chettiar suspected the conduct of his wife Mahalakshmi and started ill treating her and in the process, replaced some of the Harijan accused who were engaged for cultivation by his wife Mahalakshmi on the suspicion that they were rendering support to the estranged wife. In the process of difference of opinion between the husband Sivakolundu Chettiar and the wife Mahalakshmi, it transpires Mahalakshmi was driven out of the house and house was locked by Siva kolandu Chettiar before he left for Ceylon, but after some time Mahala-kshvni entered the house with supprt of Naduth-eru Harijans. 4. In the process of difference of opinion between the husband Sivakolundu Chettiar and the wife Mahalakshmi, it transpires Mahalakshmi was driven out of the house and house was locked by Siva kolandu Chettiar before he left for Ceylon, but after some time Mahala-kshvni entered the house with supprt of Naduth-eru Harijans. 4. While so, on the morning of 14.7.85, Sivakolundu Chettiar again drove out his wife which led to Mahalakshmi lying a Complaing before the Batlagundu Police Station against her husband and a few others, which was registered as Crime No.358 of 1985 for offences under Secs.147, 148, 454, 354, 355, 379, 323, 324 and 506 of I.P.C. It is in this background that the occurrence in the present case is said to have taken place at about 6.30 P.M. on 14.7.1985. It is the case of the prosecution that, the Harijans owing loyalty to Mahalakshmi warned to scare the Chettiars of the village and in thai process they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing harm to active and important members of the Chettiars’ Association and when the deceased Dorai, the treasurer of the Chettiars’ Association came with others and was proceeding towards the waiting taxi, some of the accused pelted stones during the course of which one witness Nachiap-pan sustained injury. As far as the deceased Durai is concerned overt acts are alleged against A2, A3 and A4 alone. A3 and A4 are alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while A2 stabbed the deceased on his back with a knife resulting in an injury to the lung leading to his ultimate death. No overt act whatsoever is attributed to the petitioner. As far as the charges that were framed against the petitioner in S.C.No.33 of 1987 are concerned, they are referable to charges 8 and 9. Charge No.8 is for an offence under Sec.302 read with 149, I.P.C. against Al, A5 to A6 and A10 to A21. As far as the charge No.9 is concerned, it was framed against A2, Al 6 and A 21 for the offence of conspiracy punishable under Sec.l20-B, I.P.C. 5. Mr.T.Sudanthirans, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following three points: - (1) Admittedly the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and therefore invoking the aid of Sec.149, I.P.C, will not be feasible. Mr.T.Sudanthirans, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged the following three points: - (1) Admittedly the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and therefore invoking the aid of Sec.149, I.P.C, will not be feasible. (2) In respect of the charge of conspiracy, the trial Court in S.C.No.38 of 1987 has given a specific finding that the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10 who were the only witnesses examined to prove the said charge was unworthy of credence and a different finding of fact may not be possible on the facts and circumstances of this case. (3) Taking the entire facts and circumstances put forth by the prosecution against this petitioner, there is no evidence whatsoever for any Court to convict the petitioner. 6. I have heard Miss Thamaraiselvi, appearing for the State, and she has fairly conceded that there is practically no material about the presence of the petitioner at the scene at the time of occurrence, and the only material placed by the prosecution was in relation to the conspiracy which is said to be 11 days prior to the occurrence, and the relevant evidence regarding this conspiracy had not been accepted by the trial Court in S.C.No.38 of 1987 leading to the acquittal of most of the accused. It is represented by both counsel that no appeal had been filed by the State challenging the findings of the trial Court in S.C.No.38 of 1987. It is also seen that none of the accused in S.C.No.38 of 1987 had been convicted with the aid of Sec.149, I.P.C. 7. In the light of the submissions made, I am of the view that even if the entire material on record, is taken into consideration, it will not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. The statement of P.Andavar, Kamaraj and Paulraj who are witnesses No.16 to 18 in the final report is to the following effect: 8. Of these three witnesses, Kamaraj and Paulraj were examined as P.Ws.9 and 10 while Andavar was not put in the witness box. Even taking their statements as a whole, there can be no conspiracy for murder. Further their evidence had been disbelieved by the trial Court in S.C.No.38 of 1987. Of these three witnesses, Kamaraj and Paulraj were examined as P.Ws.9 and 10 while Andavar was not put in the witness box. Even taking their statements as a whole, there can be no conspiracy for murder. Further their evidence had been disbelieved by the trial Court in S.C.No.38 of 1987. The observation of the trial Court in Para 30 of its judgment would indicate that the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 10 was incredible, tricky and shaky, left much to be desired and was insufficient to establish conspiracy. A careful reading of their version throws serious doubt as to whether there was any conspiracy at all. As already stated, the State had not filed any appeal against the judgment of the trial Court in S.C.No.38 of 1987. 9. In the said circumstances detailed by me earlier, it appears to my mind that there is practically no material whatsoever for a trial being conducted against this petitioner. Even on the aspect of the motive referred to in the final report, it is conceded that there is no admissible evidence. It has been often held that the saving of the inherent powers of this Court is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose, which is that a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the quashing of proceedings by this Court, in the interests of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law, though justice has got to be administered according to laws, made by the legislature. 10. If on the facts of this case, as stated earlier there was no acceptable material for a change of conspiracy and admittedly the petitioner was not present at the scene, I do not think, there will be any useful purpose served in the trial being conducted against the petitioner in S.C.No.8 of 1988. 11. In the result, the proceedings are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.