- (1.) S. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Sharad Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No. 2 and the learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding criminal case No. 583 of 2005, State v. Ajay Malhotra, under Section 323 and 504, I. P. C. pending in the Court of III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, arising out of case crime No. 371 of 1997, P. S. Sector 20, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The incident took place on 2/5/1997 at 10. 00 p. m. and First Information Report was lodged on 4-5-1997 at 8. 20 p. m. Three persons Ajay Malhotra (applicant), Vineet Grover and Deepak Rana were named. As per the allegations in the F. I. R. on 2-5-1997 at about 10. 00 p. m. Informant Col. V. P. S. Chauhan had gone to Arun Bihar Institute Club. When he was going towards earmarking the three accused attacked him, abused him and did Marpeet with him. At that time three accused were in drunken state. Ajay Malhotra (applicant) caused injuries to him by Chhura. On mobile the accused called their companions and did Marpeet with the informant; in front of Arun Bihar Institute. Crowd assembled and seeing the crowd the accused persons ran away. Some people admitted the informant in unconscious state in Sippy Nursing Home and thereafter he was shifted to Army Hospital, where he was under treatment and sent the written report to the police station. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against Ajay Malhotra (applicant) and other co-accused, namely, Vineet Grover and Deepak Rana under Section 323 and 504 I. P. C. Charges were framed against other two accused persons and since the applicant absented himself his case was separated in the trial. Victim injured Col. V. P. S. Chauhan was examined as PW1 and since he did not support the prosecution story, he was declared hostile. Consequently, on 3-11-2004 the judgment was pronounced against the two accused persons, namely, Vineet Grover and Deepak Rana and both were acquitted. Copy of the judgment is annexed as Annexure-7 to the affidavit field by the applicant. I have perused the certified copy of the judgment passed in criminal case No. 6852 of 2004, State v. Vineet Grover and Ors. , relating to case crime No. 371 of 1997, under Section 323 and 504 I. P. C. of P. S. Sector 20, Noida. A perusal of the same suggests that applicant Ajay Malhotra absented himself during trial and the case of co-accused Vineet Grover and Deepak Rana were separated. Complainant Col. V. P. S. Chauhan was examined as PW1 who was alleged to have been injured in the Marpeet done by the three accused persons. He deposed before the Court that three accused met him in the car parking in a drunken state. They spoke to him in a loud voice and crowd assembled there. The occurrence took place at about 10-00 p. m. He was pushed by the people. He could not see his assailants. Thus he did not support the prosecution story. Learned Magistrate acquitted co-accused Deepak Rana and Vineet Grover.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has argued that from the perusal of the judgment (Annexure-7) it is amply clear that the complainant of the case Col. V. P. S. Chauhan did not come forward to support the prosecution case as such the present proceedings against the applicant before the trial Court is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that to the facts and circumstances of the present case principle of stare decisive is squarely applicable and proceedings against the applicant are liable to be quashed. In support of the contention the learned Counsel has placed reliance on Wazir Yadav v. State of U. P. , 2004 Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2004, where it has been held that if the circumstances of the case are such that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings against the accused and the result of the proceedings is very obvious, it can safely be concluded that even if the trial is allowed to continue it will only end in the order of acquittal and no fruitful purpose would be gained if the proceedings are allowed to continue in respect of other accused. Further reliance has been placed in the case of Manoj v. State of U. P. , 2004 (49) ACC 302, where this Court has held that since the two accused were acquitted and the same evidence is to be adduced for the second time, it will amount to wastage of time as there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction. In the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of Annexure-7 it is amply clear that the two accused Deepak Rana and Vineet Grover have been acquitted as per Annexure-7 as the informant who was alleged to have been injured in the occurrence specifically stated that he could not see his assailants. No other witness was examined.;