- (1.) S. S. Kulshrestha, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and also perused the materials on record.
(2.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been brought for quashing the proceedings of case No. 78/96, State v. Narayan Rai, pending in the Court of IV Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused applicant that with regard to the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 29-4-1996, Smt. Vidyavati Devi lodged report at the police station attributing allegations against the accused applicant and his son Sri Harshwardhan Rai that with a view to kill Sri Pankaj Rai @ Pappu, son of the complainant at the exhortation of Sri Narayan Rai, his son Sri Harshwardhan Rai opened fire resultantly causing serious injuries to him. On the report of Smt. Vidyavati Devi case was registered at case crime No. 78/96 under Section 307 IPC. The police after investigation had submitted charge-sheet against Sri Harshwardhan Rai and his father Sri Narayan Rai. Case of Sri Harshwardhan Rai was separated at the committal stage and it was taken up for trial before the V Addl. Sessions Judge, Ghazipur (S. T. No. 321/98 ). In the course of trial two witnesses namely Smt. Vidyavati Devi and injured Sri Pankaj Rai were examined. Smt. Vidyavati Devi though supported the allegations made in the report but made it clear that she was not the eye- witness to the incident. So far as Sri Pankaj Rai is concerned he denied the truthfulness of the allegations made in the written report and stated that he could not identify any one at the spot when he sustained fire-arm injuries. Sri Pankaj Rai injured was declared hostile. The testimony of both the witnesses was not found credible to fasten Sri Harshwardhan Rai in the commission of the aforesaid offence. Emphasis has been laid that these are the only witnesses who would again be examined if the proceedings are permitted to prolong against the accused applicant Sri Narayan Rai. No useful purpose would be served for prolonging the proceedings against him. Principle of stare decisis in the given circumstances of the case has been resorted. Reliance may also be placed in the case of Diwan Singh v. State, 1965 (2) (sic) 118, wherein it was held: "if two persons are prosecuted though separately, under the same charge for offences having been committed in the same transaction and on the basis of the same evidence, and if one of them is acquitted for whatever may be the reason and the other is convicted, then it will create an anomalous position in law and is likely to shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. " THIS view was reiterated in the case of Gulab Khan v. State of U. P. , Lucknow Bench of this Court. The principle of stare decisis will apply in the present case and conviction cannot be procured. It has also been mentioned that this Court in the exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code may quash the proceedings of the trial by making principle of stare decisis applicable. Reliance has also been placed on the case of Sunil Kumar v. State [81 (1999) Delhi Law Times 197] wherein it was held: "there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner and the valuable time of the Court would be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date if the Court is almost certain that the trial only would be an exercise in futility or sheer wastage of time, it is advisable to truncate or ship the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself. " Same view was also taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Amarjit v. State (Delhi) [1996 (1) CC Cases 465]. In the given circumstances, since the principal accused who had opened fire had already been acquitted and the testimony of both the witnesses was found to be unbelievable against the accused applicant and so no useful purpose would be served for prolonging the proceedings against the accused applicant. That would also be barred by the principle of estoppel. For the aforesaid reasons, the accused applicant is entitled for (sic) the benefit of principle of stare decisis. In the result the proceedings of case No. 78/96, State v. Narayan Rai, under Section 307 IPC pending in the Court of IV Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur against the accused applicant Sri Narayan Rai are hereby quashed. Application is allowed. Application allowed. .;