ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner (A-4) in C.C. No. 9 of 2004 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner and other accused were chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 477-A of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 5 of the A.P. Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 for allegedly swindling away the money of the depositors to a tune of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and odd. The petitioner is one of the Directors of the Company along with 19 others. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as a Chartered Accountant in a private company and he co-opted as a Director and he has no active role to play in the company affairs and he is not the incharge of the day to day affairs of the company. 4. He further submitted that there is no averment in the charge-sheet mentioning about his role in the company affairs and it is simply mentioned that the Chairman and Directors are jointly and severally responsible for the monies of the depositors. Except the said sentence, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner that he is responsible for a particular act of mismanagement or any act of cheating or breach of trust in the capacity of a Director, therefore, he requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case against A-16 was also quashed by this Court through the order in Crl.P. No. 3736 of 2004, dated 10-11-2004 which was reported in H. Ramprasad v. State of A.P.1 and requested to apply the same principle in respect of the petitioner also. He further submitted that unless there is active role in the management of the day to day affairs of the company, the knowledge that the funds were swindled away by the company cannot be attributed to the petitioner, therefore, he requested to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 6. After going through the contents of the charge-sheet and other relevant documents, it is noticed that the allegations are mainly against the Chairman and his kith and kin. The petitioner is not related to the Chairman. 6. After going through the contents of the charge-sheet and other relevant documents, it is noticed that the allegations are mainly against the Chairman and his kith and kin. The petitioner is not related to the Chairman. There is no specific role attributed to the petitioner in the charge-sheet except that he is also liable along with the Chairman and other Directors. Since no specific role has been mentioned in the complaint against the petitioner attracting the ingredients of any of the provisions under which the crime was registered, there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner, therefore, I am inclined to quash the prosecution against him. However, it will not preclude the investigating agency to file additional charge-sheet if it is found on a subsequent date that the petitioner played active role in swindling away the money of the depositors by giving the instances of such involvement in the commission of offence. 7. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 9 of 2004 are quashed.