ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as A3 out of three accused and he has been charged for the alleged offence under Sections 449, 392 read with Sections 397 and 109, I.P.C. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was a law college student. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is to the effect that the petitioner/A3 abetted A1 and A2 by furnishing information to them about the availability of witness Tmt. Suseela with gold jewels lonely at the said house and also by identifying the said house to them. It is submitted that in respect of the above said charge, the only materials available on record is the confession statement of the co-accused namely, A2. There is no implication of the petitioner by A1 in his confession. It is further submitted that the alleged confession recorded from A2 is inadmissible, as the confession does not lead to the discovery of any article and there is no other article recovered. 3. It is further submitted that there are two witnesses, namely, P.W.14-Ramamurthy and P.W.15-Sivakumar, who spoke about the presence of the petitioner/A3 along with other person roaming around the college at Marudhamalai area in his two wheeler. Admittedly, there is no identification parade. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was admittedly not present at the time of alleged occurrence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the following decision in support of his contention that the contention of co-accused is not substantive piece of evidence 1999-1-L.W.(Crl.) 184. 5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that there are enough materials available on record to implicate the petitioner herein. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) that the implication of the petitioner herein in the alleged offence is by the confession statement of the co-accused namely A-2. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) further contended that the witnesses namely Ramamurthy and Sivakumar who have cited as witnesses 14 and 15 have also spoken about the involvement of this accused namely, A-3 to the effect that they have seen the petitioner A-3 roaming around the college at the Marudhamalai area in his two wheeler. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) further contended that the witnesses namely Ramamurthy and Sivakumar who have cited as witnesses 14 and 15 have also spoken about the involvement of this accused namely, A-3 to the effect that they have seen the petitioner A-3 roaming around the college at the Marudhamalai area in his two wheeler. It is contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against him. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the materials available on record including the complaint, statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and the confession statement of A-1 and A-2. 7. It is seen that the petitioner has been arrayed as A-3 out of three accused and he has been implicated for the alleged offence under Section 449, 392 read with Sections 397 and 109, I.P.C. The charge against the petitioner is to the effect that A-1 and A-2 are the residents of Thoothukudi and associate of A3 who has been studying at Government Law College, Coimbatore. It is also seen that A-1 and A-2 committed house trespass by entering into the house of witness Tmt. Suseela and committed robbery by snatching her gold jewellery and also removing her gold jewellery found in the Bureau to the value of about Rs.47, 500/- by threatening the witness Suseela at knife point and also tying her hands and legs with telephone wire. It is also alleged that A-3, the petitioner is said to be abetted A-1 and A-2 by furnishing information to them about the availability of witness Suseela and gold jewellery and that she was alone in the said house namely at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, as far as the petitioner is concerned, the only allegation is to the effect that the petitioner is said to have given the information to the other accused namely A-1 and A-2 to the effect that the witness Suseela was alone in her house and she was wearing gold jewellery. In order to implicate the petitioner (A-3) the prosecution is left with single piece of material namely the alleged confession of A-2. As far as confession of A-1 is concerned, there is no implication of the petitioner herein. In order to implicate the petitioner (A-3) the prosecution is left with single piece of material namely the alleged confession of A-2. As far as confession of A-1 is concerned, there is no implication of the petitioner herein. The fact remains that even in pursuance of confession of co-accused A-2, the investigation does not recover any article and the same does not come under Section 27 of Evidence Act. It is pertinent to be noted that the perusal of the materials available on record also does not discloses any incriminating material to establish the friendship and relationship of A-3 with the accused A-1 and A-2. Yet another piece of evidence available on record is to the effect that the statements recorded from one Ramamurthy and Sivakumar, who have been cited as Witnesses No. 14 and 15 and they have merely stated that A-3 was seen roaming around with his two wheeler in the area of College at Maruthamalai. This Court is of the considered view that this piece of material does not make out any case or implicate the petitioner, who has been arrayed as A-3, as he, being a College student, nothing wrong in roaming around the college in that particular area. Therefore, that particular piece of material, viz., statement of witnesses Ramamurthy and Sivakumar recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. not at all implicates the petitioner herein and the same cannot be construed to be an incriminating material against the petitioner herein. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly place reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 1999 L.W. (Crl.) 184, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court held that as follows:- “…… In support of his arguments referred to above, the learned senior counsel brought to my notice a judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India reported in R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 1960 M.W.N. (Crl.) 177 : AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein their Lordships have laid down the nature and scope of he inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. as it then stood. In that Judgment, their Lordships have held as follows:- “Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute the offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge the High Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction. In that Judgment, their Lordships have held as follows:- “Where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute the offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge the High Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or not support the accusation in question.‘ Another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in Pragasam, P v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Karaikal 1994-1-L.W.(Crl.)208 was also brought to my notice by the learned senior counsel. The question of admissibility of the statement of a co-accused against another accused, came up for consideration in that case. The learned Single Judge of this Court while dealing with that question had held as follows:- “ Held: That the confession of ‘S‘ implicating the present petitioner is the only evidence available against him is not disputed. It is true that under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other persons as well as against the persons who made such confession. But, there should be substantive evidence before the confession of co-accused can be used to set at rest any doubt. Conviction based on confession of co-accused alone is illegal. Such confession can be used only for lending re-assurance of other substantive evidence. The statement given by an accused involving himself in the crime and also implicating third person cannot be proved legally in the Court. It will be conflicting with Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. If such evidence or confession cannot be proved, then the occasion for utilising that statement against another person does not arise. The result is that reliance of such statement against another person while framing charge does not arise. It will be conflicting with Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. If such evidence or confession cannot be proved, then the occasion for utilising that statement against another person does not arise. The result is that reliance of such statement against another person while framing charge does not arise. In the absence of any such substantive evidence it is seen that there is practically no material against the present petitioner to be proceeded against. The proceedings herein against the petitioner, are liable to be quashed.” The learned single judge in the above case had followed the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India referred to above. Therefore, it is clear according to me, that there is no legal evidence before the lower Court in this case on the basis of which it can proceed against the second accused and on that ground alone, the proceedings pending now on the file of the lower Court as far as the second accused is concerned has to be necessarily quashed……..” 9. The Honourable Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate and Another (2007) 7 Supreme 339 has held that:- “…. It is now a well-settled principle of law that a confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the Court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of the conclusion deducible there from. (See Hari-charan Kurmi etc. v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1157 ; Haroom Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 832 and Prakash Kumar alias Prakash Bhutto etc. v. State of Gujarat (2007) 4 SCC 266 ……” The above settled principle of law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also except the confession of the co-accused, namely, A-2 there is no other supporting or incriminating material available on record against the petitioner herein. 10. 10. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioner would amount to a clear case of abuse of process of Court and as such this Court is constrained to quash the proceeding against the petitioner and accordingly, the proceedings, as far as the petitioner/A-3 is concerned, pending in P.R.C. No. 13 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Coimbatore, is hereby quashed. Petition allowed.