ORDER : These four criminal petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC seeking to quash the entire proceedings in SC No.245/2016, SC No.246/2016, SC No.248/2016 and SC No.249/2016 pending on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sec.143, 147, 148, 448, 353, 332, 324, 504, 506, 307, 427 R/w 149 of IPC and U/Sec.3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 arising out of Crime Nos.300/2015, 301/2015, 302/2015, 303/2015 of Afzalpur Police Station, in so far as the petitioner / accused No.13 is concerned. 2. The brief facts leading to these four petitions are as follows: On 10.11.2015 at 02.15 PM the complainant one Shivasharanappa Jamadar a Police Constable has lodged a complaint alleging that himself and his superior police staff were on duty of Bandobust on the eve of Tippu Sultan Jayanti. It is alleged that, the accused persons opposing the celebration of Tippu Jayanti formed into unlawful assembly, came there and started pelting stones on the police officers and staff and also on the vehicles and thereby caused injuries to the persons and also caused damage to the vehicles. It is further alleged that the accused restrained police personnel from discharging their official duties and abused them in filthy language and put them under life threat. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent-police registered Crime No.300/2015 for the aforesaid offences. 3. On 10.11.2015 at 02.15 PM the complainant one Yunus S/o Mahammod a Police Constable has given statement of complaint that on the eve of Tippu Sultan Jayanti some opposition persons objected for the celebration and started pelting stones on the police thereby caused injuries to the persons and also caused damage to the vehicles. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent-police registered Crime No.301/2015 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 353, 332, 324, 37, 427, 54, 56 R/w 149 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 4. On 10.11.2015 at 02.15 PM the complainant one Mallikarjun S/o Gurushantappa Soddigi a Police Constable gave a statement of complaint that on the eve of Tippu Sultan Jayanti some opposition persons objected for the celebration and started pelting stones on the police personnel and on their vehicles. 4. On 10.11.2015 at 02.15 PM the complainant one Mallikarjun S/o Gurushantappa Soddigi a Police Constable gave a statement of complaint that on the eve of Tippu Sultan Jayanti some opposition persons objected for the celebration and started pelting stones on the police personnel and on their vehicles. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent-police registered Crime No.302/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 307, 427, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 5. On 10.11.2015 at 02.15 PM the complainant one Rasheed S/o Munna Alandkar gave a complaint stating that on the eve of Tippu Sultan Jayanti some opposition persons objected for the celebration Tippu Sultan Jayanti and started pelting stones on the police personnel and also on their vehicles and caused injuries to the police officials and damaged the vehicles. On the basis of his complaint, the respondent-police registered Crime No.303/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506 R/w 149 of IPC and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 6. In all the above stated cases, after completing the investigation, the separate charge sheets were came to be filed and now the cases being committed to the Sessions Court they are pending in SC No.245/2016, SC No.246/2016, SC No.248/2016 and SC No.249/2016 respectively on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi for framing charge. 7. The petitioner Laxmiputra S/o Siddaram Padaki an un-employed has stated that his name does not find place in any of the FIRs stated above nor his name is stated in the complaints given by the police officers. However, while the charge sheets in all the four cases were filed his name has been arrayed as accused No.13 in all the four cases. The petitioner is not involved in any such acts as alleged in the complaints lodged by the police officials. He is a localite and therefore inclusion of his name is an after thought. It may be at the instance of somebody. Some of the names mentioned in the FIR have been deleted in the charge sheet based on the further statement of the complainants. There is no specific allegations against the petitioner by the complainants and witnesses. He is a localite and therefore inclusion of his name is an after thought. It may be at the instance of somebody. Some of the names mentioned in the FIR have been deleted in the charge sheet based on the further statement of the complainants. There is no specific allegations against the petitioner by the complainants and witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved by the charge sheets filed against him showing him as accused No.13 has filed these petitions seeking to quash the same. He has further alleged that out of the single incident four cases have been registered by issuing four FIRs and four charge sheets have been filed and in all the charge sheets the name of the petitioner is included which appear to be malafide. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner in all the four cases are liable to be quashed. 8. Heard the learned Court for the petitioner in all the four cases and also heard the learned High Court Government Pleader. 9. Since the allegations in all the four cases complaints and charge sheets are similar and the alleged incidents in all the cases occurred on 10.11.2015 between 1.30 PM and 1.45 PM and that four cases were registered and in all the four cases charge sheets have been filed against the same set of accused persons including the petitioner for similar offences, all the four petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in all the cases submitted that the alleged incident took place in one place near Siddrameshwar Temple Road, Kalaburagi at about 1.30 PM. However, four separate complaints were registered showing the time of the incident as 1.30 PM, 1.35 PM, 1.40 PM. It is the case of the prosecution that alleged incident took place on the eve of celebration of Tippu Sultan Jayanti which was opposed by section of the people of the public. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in any of the complaints. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the I.O. has made a video recording of the incident and the petitioner is not found in the video also. It is also seen from the complaints that in all the cases general allegations are made against the group of persons. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the I.O. has made a video recording of the incident and the petitioner is not found in the video also. It is also seen from the complaints that in all the cases general allegations are made against the group of persons. It is also seen that initially there were 26 accused persons and now the charge sheet is filed in all the cases in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd case against accused No.1 to 26 and in the 4th case against accused No.1 to 14. In all the cases, the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.13. 11. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there are general allegations in the complaints against all the accused and that all the accused have committed the offences in furtherance of common object. 12. The material collected by the I.O. in all the cases goes to show that the names of the persons involved in the alleged incident were not known to the complainants and other police officers at the time of registering the case. However, the names of accused No.1 to 28 are shown in the first complaint in which the name of the petitioner does not find place. It is further stated that along with those 28 accused persons some others were also present and the name of the petitioner has been included in the charge sheet among them. Absolutely, there is no material to make out a prima-facie case of involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident. The I.O. has recorded the statements of the witnesses who are none other than the police officials except 2 to 4 witnesses. The material on record does not disclose any overt act against the petitioner or his involvement in the alleged incident much less prima-facie case for the alleged offences are made out against the petitioner. It is also seen that out of the single incident four separate cases have been registered and four separate charge sheets have been filed against the same accused persons. Under these circumstances, I hold that the petitioner has made out that inclusion of his name in the charge sheets filed against him is abuse of process of law since the same is not supported by any material. Under these circumstances, I hold that the petitioner has made out that inclusion of his name in the charge sheets filed against him is abuse of process of law since the same is not supported by any material. Therefore, in order to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the entire proceedings pending against the petitioner in SC No.245/2016, SC No.246/2016, SC No.248/2016 and SC No.249/2016 on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.. ORDER Criminal Petition Nos.201295/2018, 201296/2018, 201297/2018 and 201298/2018 filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC. are hereby allowed. The entire proceedings in SC No.245/2016, SC No.246/2016, SC No.248/2016 and SC No.249/2016 pending on the file of Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi are hereby quashed in so far as the petitioner / accused No.13 is concerned.