The principle of stare decisis was applied to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused.

Heard Sri M. L. Syal, Advocate from the side of the petitioner and Sri Munish Kumar Singh from the side of the State.

2. This petition has been moved under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing of the proceedings of Case No. 2815 of 1998, arising out of Criminal Case No. 1/93 under Sections 302, 307 I. P. C. , P. S. Manjhila, District Hardoi, State v. Muneshwar Singh.

3. It appears that a report was lodged by one Nankai against four accused persons including petitioner. Alleging that they made fire shot on spot hitting his brother Chiranju and his father when tried to intervene, he was also assaulted. His brother and father died on the spot. Nankai is also injured witness in this case. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against two co-accused and the investigation against Muneshwar remain continued. The trial of the two charge-sheeted co-accused proceeded and after committal of the case, the accused persons Aasaram and Balbeer were acquitted by the III Additional District Judge, Hardoi, vide order dated 9-8-1999. Meanwhile, charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer against Muneshwar the present petitioner. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on that charge-sheet and Criminal Case No. 2815/98 was registered. One application was moved in that case by the complainant Nankai for quashing of the charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer against the accused Munsehwar alleging that she did not want to proceed against Muneshwar. Two other co-accused had already been acquitted by the competent Court besides the present petitioner Muneshwar.

4. It is argued that the statements of the complainant Nankai and two other witnesses were recorded in the competent Court in S. T. No. 694 of 1998, State v. Asha Ram and others, out of three witnesses, two witnesses Ashok and turned hostile and Nankai also did not support the fact that he had identified the accused on the spot. Copies of these statements of the witnesses are annexed as Annexure Nos. 11, 12 and 13 and statements of Nankai is at Page No. 31 to this petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance of 2004 (1) JIC 508 (All.) Narayan Rai v. State of U. P. & Anr. The Honble Court has observed as follows in the aforesaid case :

"criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Quashing of proceeding.- Proceeding against two persons launched under Section 30 I. P. C. Case separated one witness deposed that she was not an eye-witness. Another denied truthfulness of allegations made in written report and stated that he could not identify any one at the spot. Considering these evidences trial Court acquitted one. Principle of applicability of stare decisis Held : Principle of stare decisis will apply and conviction cannot be procured. (1999) 81 Delhi Law Times 198 ; 1996 (1) CC Cases 465-Relied on (stare decisis. Applicability of principle ). "

5. I have gone through the aforesaid case, the facts are similar to the facts of the aforesaid case. It appears that the two accused Aasaram and Balbeer have already been acquitted by the competent Court after full trial. The witnesses Sunder Lal and Ashok have denied to see the incident and even complainant has also denied to have identified any accused on the spot. He has also moved an application alleging that he does not want to proceed against Muneshwar. Under the circumstances, it appears that even if the witnesses are allowed to be produced in the case against Muneshwar, the result will the same and there is no probability for conviction of accused Muneshwar in this case. It would be otherwise wastage of time of the Court, to proceed against Muneshwar and it is advisable to quash the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 Cr. P. C.

6. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the High Court in the aforesaid case, I do not find any necessity to proceed with the case against accused Muneshwar keeping in the view the principle of stare decisis. I am of the view that ultimately t