Judgment :- The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioners to call for the records in P.R.C.No.4 of 1990 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and quash the same. 2. The petitioners have contended that originally a charge sheet was filed against the petitioners along with 18 others in R.C.No.5/88/SCB/CBI, Chennai for offences under Sections 120(B), 341, 364, 302 and 201 IPC. At the time of committal, the petitioners A1 to A3 were treated as approvers and the Respondent filed necessary applications under Section 306 Cr.P.C for tender of pardon. The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore tendered pardon to the petitioners and committed the case to the sessions Court, Salem for Trial. Before the Court of sessions, Salem, petitioners were examined as PW-1 to PW-3 in S.C.No.71 of 1989. During the course of trial in S.C.No.71 of 1989, the prosecution treated the petitioners as Hostile Witnesses" on the ground, that they did not depose in accordance with their statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the Learned Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 306 Cr.P.C in the Court to the effect that the petitioners had failed to comply with the condition on the basis of which they were tendered pardon under Section 306 (1) Cr.P.C and prayed the Court that pardon granted to the petitioners may be withdrawn. Based upon this request by the prosecution, the Learned Sessions Judge, Salem on 23. 1990, directed the prosecution to take appropriate steps to prosecute the petitioners. In view of the directions, the Respondent filed a separate charge sheet against the petitioners on 17. 1990 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. On 8. 1990, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore was pleased to take the case on file against the petitioners for alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 344, 364, 302, and 201 IPC. in PRC No.4 of 1996. 3. The petitioners further alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioners and other accused were parties to the criminal conspiracy to commit offences such as kidnapping for murder, wrongful confinement, murder, causing disappearance of the evidence with intent to screen the offences, furnishing false information regarding the offence and disposal of the dead body. 4. The petitioners submit that in the case in S.C.No.71 of 1989, 18 accused persons were prosecuted and Judgment was pronounced by the Learned principal Sessions Judge, Salem on 11. 4. The petitioners submit that in the case in S.C.No.71 of 1989, 18 accused persons were prosecuted and Judgment was pronounced by the Learned principal Sessions Judge, Salem on 11. 1990. In the Judgment, seven accused were convicted and the remaining accused were acquitted from all charges. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Sessions Judge, the convicted accused persons preferred appeals before this Honorable Court. 5. The petitioners further submit that they have moved a Criminal Original Petition No.15749 of 1997 and prayed for direction not to proceed with the trial in PRC No.4 of 1990 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate till the disposal of CA No 766 of 1990, pending before this Honourable Court. The petition was ordered as prayed for. As per this Honourable Courts order, PRC No.4 of 1990 was not taken up for further proceedings against the petitioner. 6. This Honourable Division Bench dismissed the Criminal Appeals. Now, the petitioners submit that they are now being prosecuted as accused in PRC No.4 of 1990 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore for the above said offences. The petitioners are filing this petition to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in PRC No.4 of Coimbatore. The petitioners submit that they have filed connected papers along with the said Criminal Original Petition. 7. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners cited a Judgment reported in 2005 (1) Crimes 1(SC), State of Orissa ..Vs.. Debendra Nath Padhi to support his case. 8. Both the counsels of the parties argued for their respective sides. 9. After hearing the arguments of both sides and a perusal of the contents of the petition filed, the Court is of the view that the Learned public prosecutor filed a petition under Section 308 Cr.P.C in the Court to the effect that the petitioners have failed to comply with the conditions on the basis of which, they were tendered pardon under Section 306 (1) Cr.P.C, and prayed the Court that the pardon granted to the petitioners may be withdrawn. Based on this request by the prosecution, the Learned Session Judge, Salem on 23. 1990, directed the prosecution to take appropriate steps to prosecute the petitioners. 10. In view of the direction, the Respondent filed a separate charge sheet against the petitioners on 17. 1990 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. On 8. Based on this request by the prosecution, the Learned Session Judge, Salem on 23. 1990, directed the prosecution to take appropriate steps to prosecute the petitioners. 10. In view of the direction, the Respondent filed a separate charge sheet against the petitioners on 17. 1990 before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. On 8. 1990, the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore was pleased to take the offences under Sections 120-B, 344, 364, 302, and 201 IPC in PRC No 4 of 1996. The said order of the Court is perfectly correct. So, the Respondent can proceed with the matter in accordance with law, in a speedy manner, to establish the prosecution case. 11. Hence, the Court is not warranted to interfere with the proceedings in PRC No.4 of 1990. So, the Criminal Original Petition has got to be dismissed. Connected Miscellaneous Petition are closed.