By the Court.—Challenge in the present petition is to the F.I.R. dated 20.9.2007 registered at case crime No. 2331 of 2007 under Section 498-A, 304-B, I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act P.S. Kotwali District Mainpuri dovetailed with the submission in the forefront that the trial of co-accused has already ended in acquittal and there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction against the petitioner.

2. The abridged version of the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant that her daughter was constantly persecuted for bringing less dowry and she narrated her plight on various occasions whenever she happened to talk on phone with the deceased daughter. On the day of occurrence i.e. 27.6.2007, the deceased was beaten black and blue and on being tipped, the complainant went to take her daughter and found injuries on her daughter’s entire body. It is further alleged that the accused persons declined to send her daughter with the complainant. She also approached the police station concerned with the complaint but her daughter was not sent. Again it is alleged, the complainant went to take her daughter but she (complainant) was also given beating. It is also alleged that her daughter disclosed to the complainant that the accused persons were demanding money for the marriage of their daughter Rinki (petitioner in the instant case) and wanted that the complainant should sell the land to meet the demand of further dowry. On 19.9.2007 she received information that the accused persons had killed her daughter by hanging her. Upon receipt of information, she immediately rushed to the place where she came to know that post-mortem of the body of deceased Arti had already been conducted. Thereafter she lodged the F.I.R. in the case.

3. It would appear from the record that in all 10 accused persons were nominated in the F.I.R. namely Dadiya, Janki Devi mother-in-law, Mehesh, Surendra, Virendra, Anil, Km. Rinki, Shashi, Sunita and Neeraj out of which the present petitioner was related as the sister-in-law of the deceased. It would further appear that after submission of the charge-sheet, Smt. Janki Devi and Neeraj, mother-in-law and husband of the deceased were tried separately qua the other co-accused. It is alleged that the witnesses including complainant turned hostile and the trial in the aforesaid case culminated in acquittal of both the accused persons vide judgment dated 11.6.2008 rendered by learned Sessions Judge Mainpuri.

4. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the co-accused have already been acquitted in the trial by the Court below their involvement having been found to be not beyond suspicion, there is no prospect of the case against the petitioner ending in conviction and if the case against the petitioner is allowed to continue, it will be a sheer wastage of valuable time of the Court and in the circumstances, relief has been sought for quashment of the F.I.R. It is prayed that during pendency of the present petition, the arrest of the petitioner be stayed. On further arguments, the learned Counsel stated that even if the accused persons are tried separately, the role of the petitioner is not worse off qua the co-accused, who have already been acquitted and therefore, it would be sheer drought on Court’s precious time besides being an empty formality and futile exercise in the void.

5. It is obvious in the present case that the petitioner has not yet surrendered to face the trial and therefore, the learned Counsel has prayed for stay of arrest of the petitioner during pendency of the present petition in this Court.

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Sri A.K. Sand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State authorities.

7. It is settled principle of law that every case turns on its own facts and evidence as may be adduced and acquittal of a co-accused in the trial emanating from self same case crime does not necessarily entail acquittal of the other co-accused who are yet t