Judgment :- 1. In this matter, the respondent, Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram, filed a final report against the accused Nos.1 to 4 by name (I) Kuncharavel, (ii) Kumaravel, (iii) Nagalingam and (iv)Sakthi Murugan, for the offence under Sections 341, 302 r/w 34 of IPC. During the trial before the Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.61 of 2004 after recording the evidence of the witnesses, the prosecution filed an application, which was allowed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., to include two more persons as accused by name K.Jothimuthu and Sakthi Murugan. After including Jothimuthu and Sakthi Murugan as accused in the said case, only the accused Sakthi Murugan was available and the accused Jothimuthu was in abroad. Therefore, the case was split up in respect of the accused Jothimuthu and numbered as S.C.No.64 of 2007. The case in S.C.No.61 of 2007 was tried and the learned Judge convicted all the accused 1 to 4 and also the subsequently added accused Sakthi Murugan. Subsequently, the accused, who were convicted had preferred an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.No.435 of 2008 and the said appeal was disposed of on 06.07.2010 acquitting the accused Sakthi Murugan, who was added under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., and in respect of the other accused 1 to 4, their convictions were modified from Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC., to Section 304(1) r/w 34 IPC. In the meantime, the accused Jothimuthu, who is the revision petitioner herein, who was in abroad, appeared before the trial Court in the year 2009 and the warrant, which was pending against him was recalled. Thereafter, he preferred Crl.R.C.No.360 of 2009, the present application, before this Court challenging the order passed by the trial Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. At the time of filing this revision petition, the Criminal Appeal preferred by the other accused was not disposed of, but on other grounds the revision petition was preferred. 2. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) were heard. 3. As per the facts available in this case, P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the first informant in this case. 2. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) were heard. 3. As per the facts available in this case, P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the first informant in this case. In the complaint given by him, he had mentioned the names of six accused, but during investigation and also during statement given before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the names of only four persons were mentioned, who are accused 1 to 4 in this case. During trial while the evidence was recorded, the names of the other two accused Jothimuthu and Sakthi Murugan were also mentioned by the witnesses. Only in the said circumstances, an application was filed by the prosecution to include Sakthi Murugan and also the revision petitioner Jothimuthu as accused. The learned Sessions Judge also rightly allowed the application on the basis of the evidence recorded. 4. Though it is not possible to say that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge was illegal or incorrect, on the basis of materials that were available on the date of order, considering the present position that this Court having not accepted the evidence of the eyewitnesses in respect of the accused Sakthi Murugan, whose name was not mentioned during investigation and also in the statement recorded from the witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, acquitted him, the position of the revision petitioner being the same, this Court feels that even in the trial proceeds against him it would be only futile. The trial Court being bound by the judgment of the High Court, it is not possible to expect the trial Court to convict this revision petitioner. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1997 (2) SCC 699 (State of Karnataqka Vs. L.Muniswamy) observed as follows:- 7. ..... In the exercise of 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. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction." 6. Applying the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering special circumstances available in this case, this Court feels that it would be proper to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner herein in S.C.No.64 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram. 7. The revision petition is ordered accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.