JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/A3 to quash the proceedings against her in S.C.No.570/2022 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against her are under Ss. 307, 353, 336 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 185 r/w.205 of the M.V.Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record. 3. The 2nd respondent who is Inspector of Police filed a complaint against unknown persons who were travelling on the eve of new year on 31/12/2021 in Volkswagen car. According to investigation Accused No.1 was driving the car, Accused Nos.2 and 3 were sitting in the car. When a Head Constable stopped the car and asked Accused No.1 to blow air in the breath analyser, A1 escaped. Police came to know that it was Accused no.1 who was driving the vehicle and arrested him. During the course of investigation, Accused No.1 confessed that A2 and A3 were sitting in the car and they have instigated him not to cooperate with the Police and cross the check post at any cost, as such, Accused No.1 refused to take test and drove away. The said act of A1 resulted in obstruction to the legitimate duties of the Police Personnel at the spot. Accused no.1 pushed LW2 and escaped in the car. For the said reason, the Police filed charge sheet for the offences under Ss. 307, 353, 336 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 185 r/w.205 of the M.V.Act. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even according to the charge sheet none of the allegations are made out against this petitioner as she was sitting in the car. Even accepting that she was sitting in the car, the car being driven by A1, cannot in any manner be said that this petitioner was responsible in any manner for the acts of A1 who was driving the said car. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case of trial and proceedings cannot be quashed at the inception. 6. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is a case of trial and proceedings cannot be quashed at the inception. 6. To attract an offence under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code, deliberate acts have to be done with knowledge that such acts would cause death and it would amount to murder if such acts resulted in death of a person. Admittedly, this petitioner was sitting in the back of the car. For the acts of the driver of the car, the petitioner cannot be mulcted with criminal liability. Further, this petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.3 in the charge sheet only on the basis of confession of Accused No.1. 7. Confession of co-accused cannot be made basis to frame a charge as stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat 1. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings against this petitioner are liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in S.C.No.570/2022 on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-IV Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.