Judgment This is a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the 7th accused in P.R.C.No.26 of 1988 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No.2, Tirunelveli, to call for those records and quash the proceedings so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The respondent/Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk (Law and Order), filed the charge-sheet before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No.2, Tirunelveli against 7 persons, of whom accused 1 to 6 are employees of the India Cements, Thazhaiyuthu and the 7th accused/petitioner is a contractor residing at Madras. The accused are charged under Secs.147, 148, 506(11), 120-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Secs.149 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of one Vasudevan, Manager (Finance and Accounts), India Cements Ltd., Thazhaiyuthu at about 7.55 P.M. on 6.5.1988 near the Trop Gate at Old Colony, Thazhaiyuthu. The 6th accused was the Public Relations Officer of India Cements Ltd. Thazhaiyuthu and the petitioner/7th accused was a Contractor for the supply of gypsum, fly ash, electrical contracts and other matters for the company. 3. The prosecution case is that the 6th accused while he was Public Relations Officer at Thazhaiyuthu in collusion with the petitioner, whom he favoured in his contract, was causing loss to the company. After assuming office, deceased Vasudevan reported the irregularities of the 6th accused to the higher officials. As a result of the action taken the misdeeds of the 6th accused were curtailed and incentive for supply of gypsum to the petitioner was stopped, by which alone he sustained a loss of about rupees ten lakhs. Therefore, accused 6 and 7, with a view to give trouble to the management, helped one Mari for winning the election of the office bearers of the employees union as against Chellapandian, who was favourable to the management. Further, accused 6 and 7 also conspired and set up the 2nd accused Shanmugam to get rid of Vasudevan. As a result, accused 1 to 5 are said to have waylaid the said Vasudevan on 6.5.1988 while he was going in his scooter, attacked him and caused his death. The specific charge against the petitioner/7th accused is under Sec.302, I.P.C read with Sec.109, I.P.C. for abetting the murder of Vasudevan. As a result, accused 1 to 5 are said to have waylaid the said Vasudevan on 6.5.1988 while he was going in his scooter, attacked him and caused his death. The specific charge against the petitioner/7th accused is under Sec.302, I.P.C read with Sec.109, I.P.C. for abetting the murder of Vasudevan. This petition has been filed by the 7th accused to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that the only witness viz. Manimaran, whose Sec.161, Crl.P.C, statement is relied on by the prosecution to prove the charge against the petitioner, had given a different statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. Therefore, if that evidence goes, there is no other evidence against the petitioner to maintain the charge under Sec.302, I.P.C. read with Sec.109, I.P.C. and as such, in the interests of justice, the impugned proceedings may be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. 4. Copies of the statements of the witness Manimaran made under Secs.161 and 164, Crl.P.C. were filed. In his statement under Sec .161, Crl.P.C, before the respondent, the said witness Manimaran has stated that he was working in the lorryshed of the petitioner situated in the factory premises of India Cements Limited from 1982, that the petitioner introduced him to the 6th accused, the Public Relation Officer of India Cements Limited, that the 6th accused told him on 1st or 2nd April, 1988 that the petitioner wanted to meet him at Madras and asked him to go over to Madras and see the petitioner before tenth and that the 6th accused also paid him Rs.200 for his expenses. He also stated in that statement that on the night of 8th April, 1988 he left for Madras, reached Madras on 9th April, 1988 morning and went to the house of the petitioner at about 12 Noon, that when he began to open the door, he saw some people talking there, that he waited outside and overheard the conversation, that the 6th accused and the petitioner were sitting and the 2nd accused Shanmugham was standing before them, that he heard the petitioner telling the 2nd accused Shanmugham that after deceased Vasudevan came to Sankar Nagar, he incurred loss to the tune of several lakhs in his business, that deceased Vasudevan was also doing hindrance to the 6th accused, that he was responsible for the transfer of the 6th accused from Sankar Nagar to Sankaragiri, that if Vasudevan is left alive, there cannot be any improvement for him and the 6th accused and that the 2nd accused Shanmugham must get rid of Vasudevan before 1st May, 1988 if the 6th accused is not posted back to that place before that date, that the petitioner will look after the family of the 2nd accused, that the 6th accused also informed the 2nd accused that he will look after his family, and that the 2nd accused Shanmugham also agreed to that and said that he will murder Vasudevan by engaging his men. After he (Manimaran) went inside, both the 6th accused and the petitioner told him that he and the 2nd accused Shanmugham must finish the deceased Vasudevan. This statement was given by the witness Manimaran to the Inspector of Police on 15.5.1988. 5. This witness Manimaran was produced before the Additional Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Erode, for recording his statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. After giving necessary warning on 12.10.1988, the learned Magistrate recorded his statement on 13.10.1988. In that statement he stated that after the murder of Vasudevan, Manager, India Cements, he was taken to the Police Station by Inspector Sahabudeen, that in the police station A.S.P. was also present, that he told them that he did not know anything about the murder of Vasudevan but the police officers told him that his ex-proprietor (petitioner herein) is responsible for the murder of Vasudevan and that he must depose so. He replied that he did not know anything, that he was kept in the police station for twenty days, threatened him and compelled him to give statement against the petitioner though he did not know anything and that they released him thereafter. Ten days thereafter, the Inspector of Police took him to Thazhaiyuthu Police Station where the A.S.P. was present. They showed a prepared statement as if he has given a statement stating that he overheard the conversation between the petitioner and the 2nd accused Shanmugham to murder Vasudevan. They also induced Manimaran that if he gives a statement in Court, he will get permanent job in India Cements Limited and money also will be given to him. Still he told them that he did not go to Madras on that day and therefore, there is no question of hearing any conversation between the petitioner and the 2nd accused Shanmugham and that he would not tell any lie but the police threatened and compelled him to speak so. He further stated that he did not give any statement to the police as alleged by the prosecution and the police are threatening him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the above statements of the witness Manimaran, who is the only witness who implicates the petitioner for abetment for causing the death of Vasudevan, submitted that if the evidence of this witness goes, there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the crime, that he is forced to face the ordeal of trial, he will be put to unnecessary hardship without ultimately any result to the prosecution and that therefore he prayed for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor conceded that there is the evidence of this witness Manimaran alone to implicate the petitioner but that there is the evidence of another witness who is said to have met the witness Manimaran at Madras on the date when he is said to have overheard the instigation of the 6th accused and the petitioner to the 2nd accused Shanmugham. 7. Once the fact that the witness Manimaran overhearing the speech of the petitioner and the 6th accused instigating the 2nd accused Shanmugham to murder Vasudevan goes, there is absolutely no material to commit the petitioner to Sessions. 7. Once the fact that the witness Manimaran overhearing the speech of the petitioner and the 6th accused instigating the 2nd accused Shanmugham to murder Vasudevan goes, there is absolutely no material to commit the petitioner to Sessions. Therefore, if the trial is proceeded retaining the petitioner also as 7th accused, it will be an abuse of the process is concerned. In the decision reported in State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswami, 1977 Crl.L.J. 1125: A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1489, the Supreme Court has observed as follows: “In the exercise of this wholesome power the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.” 8. In this case, as fairly conceded by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the only evidence against the petitioner is the statement of Manimaran before the Inspector of Police. But, in view of his subsequent statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C. going back on his earlier statement, i.e. what he is alleged to have given to the police, even if he is examined in Court, he will not support the prosecution and even if he gives a statement in Court supporting his Sec.161, Crl.P.C statement, in view of his statement under Sec.164, Crl.P.C, given before Court going back on his earlier statement, no reliance can be placed on his evidence in Court to warrant conviction of the petitioner. The fact that this witness Manimaran was at Madras on that date is of no significance to prove the charge against the petitioner. In those circumstances, if the committal and subsequent trial is allowed to proceed as against the 7th accused/petitioner, it will be clearly an abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, as held in the above cited decision, this Court is entitled to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings as against the petitioner/ 7th accused alone are quashed.