Judgment : The 11th accused concerned in Crime No. 1322 of 1993 on the file of D-3, Ice House Police Station, has filed this petition under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C., praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same, as against him. 2. Short facts are: One Viswanathan has given the first information report to the respondent police on 29. 1993. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The informant and his elder brother Veerapandian are having an auto-rickshaw shop. There is enmity between Veerapandian, Gundu and Thirunavu. Some days ago, Thirunavu and Kumar waylaid Veerapandian and attempted to murder him. He ran away from the scene and escaped. On the previous Saturday, at 7.00 a.m. Thirunavu cut him with a patta knife and with injury he escaped and underwent treatment in Royapettah Government Hospital. On 29. 1993, at 12.45 p.m., Veerapandian was going from the house to the workshop. At that time, all of a sudden, Thiruvengadam and seven others, whose names are given in the report, came with patta knives and attacked Veerapandian and cut him repeatedly. The informant tried to intervene and save his brother. At that time,he was also attacked and he had sustained injury. Those around shouted. Those accused who had attacked the informant and his brother ran away. By then, the Inspector had come and had given this complaint. Advocate Ramakrishnan had told that only on the complaint given by Veerapandian, Thirunavu was detained under the Goondas Act and had thus abetted along with Selvaraj, who belong to A.D.M.K. party and so Thiruvengadam and others had come and committed these offences. This report was registered in Crime No. 1322 of 1993 under Secs.147, 148, 324, 307 and 149, I.P.C. against 12 accused, out of whom the petitioner is the 11th accused. To quash all further investigation as against him, the 11th accused has come forward with this petition. 3. Mr.T. Sudanthiram, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that petitioner is the counsel for accused Thiruna alias Thirunavukkarasu in Crime No. 1292 of 1993 on the file of the respondent and that the said Crime No. 1292 of 1993 was registered with regard to an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 19. 1993 and Veerapandian was the informant in that case. 1993 and Veerapandian was the informant in that case. He further submitted that the petitioner herein filed bail application on behalf of the said Thiruna alias Thirunavukkarasu before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras and it was dismissed on 28. 1993 for the reason that the accused had been detained under the Goondas Act. He would further submit that the allegations against the petitioner in this F.I.R. was only that the petitioner had told that only on the complaint given by Veerapandian, Thiruna alias Thirunavukkarasu was detained under the Goondas Act and thus instigated and that the passing of such an information cannot by any stretch of imagination amount to abetment or instigation and as such, on these allegations, report cannot be registered as against the petitioner and hence liable to be quashed. I have heard Mr.E. Raja, the learned Government Advocate, on the above aspects. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. In para.4 of the petition, it is stated as follows: "The petitioner submits that he is the counsel for the accused Thiruna alias Thirunavukkarasu in Crime No. 1292 of 1993 on the file of the respondent for an alleged offence under Secs. 426, 236, 307 and 506(ii), I.P.C. The alleged occurrence in that case is said to have taken place on 19. 1993 at 7.00 p.m. and the complainant is registered at 7.30 p.m. One Veerapandian is the alleged victim and he is the first informant. The petitioner filed a bail application on behalf of the said accused Thiruna alias Thirunavukkarasu before the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras in Crl.M.P.No. 5144 of 1993 on 20.9.1993 and it was dismissed on 28. 1993 for the reason that the said accused has been detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In the bail petition filed by the petitioner on behalf of the accused had stated that a telegram was sent to Home Secretary by the mother of the accused that her son is detained by D-3 police. The mother of the said accused sent the telegram at 6.50 p.m. on 19. 1993 mentioning that her son is detained in D-3 police station from 6.00 p.m. in order to detain him under Goondas Act." 5. The occurrence concerned in this Crime Number was on 29. 1993. The mother of the said accused sent the telegram at 6.50 p.m. on 19. 1993 mentioning that her son is detained in D-3 police station from 6.00 p.m. in order to detain him under Goondas Act." 5. The occurrence concerned in this Crime Number was on 29. 1993. The allegations as against this petitioner finds a place in the report after completion of the narration of the occurrence, Thereafter, it is stated that Advocate Ramakrishnan (petitioner herein) had abetted by informing that on the report given by his brother Veerapandian, Thiruna alias Thirunavukkarasu was detained under Goondas Act. In the typed set, the copy of the first information report concerned in Crime No. 1292 of 1993 is also filed and Veerapandian is the informant in that report, The relevant circumstances are that on 28. 1993, the bail petition filed by the petitioner on behalf of Thifuna alias Thirunavukkarasu was dismissed for the reason that he was detained under the Goondas Act. It was Veerapandian, who was informant in Crime No. 1292 of 1993. The allegations in this F.I.R. is that advocate Ramakrishnan had told that Thiruna alias Thirunavukkarasu was detained under Goondas Act on the report given by Veerapandian. From these circumstances, it would be evident that only the passing of information by the petitioners herein in his capacity as advocate was construed as abetment in the main F.I.R. I am clear that it cannot amount to an abetment so as to register the case against him. On the allegations made in the F.I.R., no case can be registered against the petitioner and on that ground it is liable to be quashed, I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am led to this conclusion for the reason that the allegations made in this F.I.R., by itself would not be sufficient to make out any offence as against him. I am constrained to hold so, only on the materials now available in the F.I.R. This finding isconfined only to the materials, placed above. If other materials come to light later, it is open to police to take appropriate action. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings as against the petitioner in Crime No. 1322 of 1993 on the file of Inspector of Police, D-3 Ice House Police Station, Madras is quashed, on the materials now available before me.