The judgment of acquittal of co-accused is not admissible to bar the trial of remaining co-accused. The acquittal of co-accused is not a relevant circumstance for quashing the proceedings against the remaining co-accused.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Virendra Kumar Maurya and Jagdamba Prasad Singh learned Additional Government Advocates for the State/opposite party no.1 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash impugned Charge-sheet dated 01.04.2015 arising out of in Case Crime No.284 of 2014 and the proceeding of Session Trial No.375 of 2018 in Case No.2209 of 2016 (State vs. Radha Devi and others), under sections 323, 506, 315 & 498A I.P.C. read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Fast Track Court, Court No.II, Kanpur Dehat.

3. A splendid question involved in this case is that "as to whether on the acquittal of co- accused, the charge sheet and criminal proceeding pursuant thereto against the remaining co-accused are liable to be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C."?

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant no.1 Smt. Radha Devi is sister-in-law (Nanad), applicant no.2, Smt. Meenu is Senior Co-sister (Jethani) and applicant No.3 Smt. Pan Kumar is mother-in-law (Saas) of opposite party no.2, namely, Smt Asha Devi, who lodged FIR on 15.06.2014, registered as Case Crime No.284 of 2014 against the applicants, namely Smt. Radha Devi, Smt. Meenu and Smt. Pan Kumar and two other co-accused, namely, Laxman (husband) and Ram Naresh brother-in-law (Jeith). The investigating officer after investigation has submitted two charge-sheets in this case. Charge-sheet dated 29.10.2014 was submitted against the co-accused, Laxman (husband) and Ram Naresh (Jeith) and charge-sheet dated 01.04.2015 was submitted against the applicant Radha Devi, Meenu and Smt. Pan Kumar, who are on bail. It is next submitted that co-accused Laxman and Ram Naresh have been acquitted by judgment and order dated 11.06.2018 by Additional District & Session Judge/Fast Track Court No.3 in Session Trial No.53 of 2015, therefore, the applicants are not entitled to face trial and proceedings against them are liable to be quashed at the pre-trial stage by this Court in exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, Sri Virendra Kumar Maurya and Jagdamba Prasad Singh, learned Additional Government Advocates refuting the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants, vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer of the applicants by contending that in this case charge sheet had been filed on 01.04.2015 against the applicants, but they have filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in July, 2019 challenging the charge sheet dated 01.04.2015 after four years without any proper explanation of delay in filing the present application. The proceeding of the trial against the applicants cannot be said to be abuse of the process of Court, and cannot be quashed merely on the ground that two other co-accused of this case have been acquitted. The present application is liable to be dismissed on merit as well as on the ground of latches.

6. After having heard the argument of learned counsel of the parties, this Court is of the view that every case turns on its own facts and evidence as may be adduced and acquittal of co- accused in a trial emanating from same case crime does not necessarily entail acquittal of the other co-accused, who are yet to be put on trial. In a trial of co-accused, the prosecution is not called upon nor it is expected to adduce evidence against absconding co-accused or such co accused who did not face trial.

7. Before delving into this issue, it would also be useful to set out sections 40, 41, 42 and 43 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which are under the heading "Judgments of Courts of justice when relevant", which reads as under :-

Section 40 :- Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.--The existence of any judg