S.N.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.
(2.) THIS application under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the pro­ceedings relating to the case crime No. 110/06 under sections 302 and 201 IPC Po­lice Station Kareilly District Allahabad, State v. Mohd. Imran pending against the applicant in the Court of Judidal Magistrate, Court No.1/Juvenile Court, Allahabad. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the charge-sheet for the offences of sections 302 and 201 IPC was filed against four persons, namely, Smt. Nuzhat Fatima alias Mahja-been, Sammu, Siraj and applicant Mohd. Imran but since applicant Mohd. Imran was juvenile, therefore, his case was sepa­rated and the Sessions Trial No. 564/07 was proceeded against the remaining accused persons. The case of the applicant is pending before the Juvenile Court/Judical Magistrate, Court No. 1, Allahabad whereas S.T, No. 564/07, State v. Smt. Nuz­hat Fatima alias Mahjabeen and others has been decided by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Allahabad on 317.2008, wherein the accused persons have not been found guilty and have been acquitted. Some of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and some have not been found trustworthy. It has also been submitted that the case of the applicant is on the identical footing and the very same evidence would be adduced by the prosecution against the applicant. The credibility of those witnesses has already been found doubtful and no useful purpose would be served in prolonging the pro­ceedings against the applicant. In the given circumstances, principle of stare decisis is applicable and conviction of the accused applicant cannot be procured. In that re­gard reliance has been placed on the case of Darshan Singh and others v. State of U.P., 2006 (54) ACC 166 (HC) of this Court wherein k has been held by this Court that when some of the accused have been acquitted on the same evidence, ad­mittedly there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, hence no fruitful purpose would be gained in continuing the trial and criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed applying the principle of stare decisis. In another decision of Manoj v. State of U.P., 2004 (49) ACC 302 (HC) this Court has ruled that since two accused were acquitted and the same evidence is to be adjudicated for the second time, it will only amount to wastage of time. Admittedly, no conviction can be procured and there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the pres­ent applicant, it will only be a hollow for­mality of completing the procedure of the trial. It is almost certain that the trial will meet the same fate and, therefore, entire exercise of going through the rigmarole of trial will be rendered futile, in such a case proceedings can be quashed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case and after perusing the judg­ment dated 31.7.2008 in Sessions Trial No. 564/07, I am convinced that this proceed­ings against applicant Mohd. Imran should be quashed applying the principle of stare decisis.
(3.) FOR the reasons discussed above, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of case crime No. 110 of 2006, State v. Mohd. Imaran, under sections 302 and 201 IPC, Police Station Kareli District Allahabad pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1/Juvenile Court Allahabad are hereby quashed. Application Allowed.;