When prosecution witnesses turn hostile and the basis of the case is undermined, the trial may be deemed futile, justifying the quashing of proceedings against accused.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. In the instant case, the petitioners have approached this Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the initiation and continuation of the criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No.423 of 2012 pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M. Puri corresponding to Brahmagiri P.S. Case No.66(46) of 2012 on the ground that the projected trial against them would be a futile exercise in view of order of acquittal vis-à-vis another accused by a judgment dated 19^th March, 2013 delivered in S.T. Case No.72/316 of 2012 by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Puri.

2. In fact, the FIR was lodged for an incident dated 24^th February, 2012, whereafter, Brahmagiri P.S. Case No.66(46) dated 25^th February, 2012 was registered under Section 302 read with 34 IPC which culminated in submission of chargesheet under the alleged offence against the petitioners and others. In the meanwhile, one of the chargesheeted accused, namely, Purna Chandra Mohapatra @ Gedu faced trial as others were shown as absconders and were not available for enquiry and trial excluding one of them, namely, Sanatan Mohapatra, who was treated as a juvenile in conflict with law. The accused, who was subjected to trial, was acquitted of the levelled charge by the judgment in S.T. Case No.72/316 of 2012 referring to which the petitioners demand quashing of the criminal proceeding on the ground that the material prosecution witnesses turned hostile and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served with a full-fledged trial which is in the waiting.

3. Heard. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Praharaj, learned SC for the State-opposite party No.1. However, none appeared for the informant-opposite party No.2.

4. Admittedly, the petitioners along with other accused persons were chargesheeted under Section 302 read with 34 IPC but both were shown as absconders and as earlier stated, a co-accused, namely, Purna Chandra Mohapatra @ Gedu was tried by the Sessions court but stood acquitted from the charge. The copies of the judgment in ST Case No.72/316 of 2012 along with chargesheet corresponding to Brahmagiri P.S. Case No.66(46) of 2012 are available in the record for the Courts’ perusal. Mr. Pujari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the entire evidence in S.T. Case No.72/316 of 2012 is hostile and none supported the prosecution story, considering such nature of evidence, to subject the petitioners to a full-blown trial would be an exercise in futility. As a counter, Mr. Praharaj, learned counsel for the State-opposite party No.1 submits that the petitioners were the absconders and because of which, they could not be made to face the trial and now after the order of acquittal in favour of co- accused, cannot be allowed to derive any benefit therefrom and while advancing such an argument, cited a decision in Hidayat Khan @ Hidayatullah Khan Vs. State of Orissa (CRLMC No. 1244 of 2004) decided on 26^th September, 2017, wherein, this Court held that absconding accused cannot be given premium to frustrate the court of justice or to misuse to process of law with a claim to treat him at par with the other accused, who have shown respect for the legal process.

5. Gone through the judgment in S.T. Case No.72/316 of 2012. In the said case, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses including the informant and three of the relations or family members of the informant besides an independent witness being the scribe of the FIR, however, none supported its version. Quite curiously, the wife of the deceased al