The principle of stare decisis was applied to quash the charge-sheet against the petitioner, considering the acquittal of the main accused and the futility of conducting a trial.

SHAILENDRA SAKSENA, J.

This petition is under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. for quashing the charge-sheet No. 33-A of 2000 in Case Crime No. 92 of 2000, under Sections 498-A/304-B I. P. C. and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act of P. S. Tambaur, District Sitapur.

2. Brief facts so far they are relevant for the decision of this petition are that in this case accused- petitioner alongwith Chandrika Prasad and Raj Rani were made accused in the above noted case. Charge-sheet was submitted against him. The petitioner is not a member of the accused or the complainants family. Trial of Chandrika Prasad and Raj Rani resulted in acquittal. The witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. The case of the accused petitioner was separated now the petitioner has been called upon to face the trial.

3. The petitioner has placed reliance on the basis of principles of law laid down reported in the case of Narayan Rai v. State of U. P. & Anr. , 2004 (1) JIC 508 (All ). In this case proceedings under Section 307 of I. P. C. were launched and the case of the petitioner was separated in the trial. The witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The main accused were acquitted.

4. This Court held that on the principle of law laid down reported in the case of Amarjil v. State (Delhi), 1996 (2) JIC 1457 (SC) : 1996 (1) SCC 465, the principle of stare decisis will apply and conviction cannot be procured on the basis of the principle of stare decisis, the charge-sheet against the petitioner should be quashed.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has admitted that no appeal against the acquittal order of other accused, Chandrika Prasad and Raj Rani has been filed. This judgment was delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 2001 on 23-2-2004.

He has also not disputed the fact that the evidence against the petitioner is same and similar and he is not a family member of the accused.

6. Looking into the above facts, the trial of the accused petitioner would be an exercise in futility. Other co-accused, against whom main allegations have been made, have already been acquitted.

7. In these circumstances, it would be just and proper that charge-sheet No. 33-A of 2000 against the petitioner should be quashed.

8. Petition deserves to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the charge-sheet No. 33-A of 2000, dated 16-7-2000 in Case No. 2143 of 2002, State v. Sant Ram, is hereby quashed.

Petition allowed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document