JUDGMENT
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. Invoking inherent jurisdiction, the petitioner prays to quash the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 169/1995 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Banki.
2. Admittedly the petitioner and some others were facing trial in the aforesaid case for commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 325, 326, 307, 109/149 of the I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act. According to prosecution case on 11.9.95 while the informant and his nephew were returning by a Luna, eight accused persons being armed with deadly weapons, abused them in filthy language, dragged them from the Luna and assaulted them. It is submitted that the present petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. But then subsequently charge sheet was submitted against him. It is further submitted that the Police did not arrest the petitioner and showing him to be an absconder charge-sheet was submitted. Later the case was split up against the petitioner. The case against the eight accused persons was committed to the Court of Session and S.T. Case No. 33/2003 was registered. The Asst. Sessions Judge, Banki by judgment dtd. 2.12.2004 acquitted all the said eight accused persons who faced trial on the ground that the prosecution had failed miserably to prove the offences against them.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that in view of the findings of the Sessions Court in S.T. Case No. 33/2003, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the trial against him and it is a fit case where proceeding of the aforesaid G.R. Case pending against him should be quashed.
4. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are strongly repudiated by Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. According to him the petitioner having absconded and having not faced the trial, the proceeding may not be dropped and he should be directed to face the trial.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. In paragraph-6 of the judgment passed by Asst. Sessions Judge, Banki in S.T. Case No. 33/2003, where the co-accused of the petitioner faced trial, the Court below referring to the evidence of P.W. 1, the informant, has observed that the said witness on solemnly affirmation stated in Court that on the date of occurrence while he was returning with Pabitra Das in a Luna, the said Luna met with an accident, resulting in grievous injuries on Pabitra. It is further stated that after the accident he immediately shifted the injured to hospital for treatment. Though he was cross examined at length, nothing contradiction could be brought out to disbelieve his statement. Similarly, P.W. 2 the person who was injured had become hostile and did not whisper a word against the accused persons. He also deposed that he sustained injures while coming in a Luna due to an accident. All other witnesses who were examined as eye-witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Relying upon the statements of the informant and the injured, the Court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution had totally failed to establish the case against the accused persons.
6. In view of the statements of the informant and the injured, this Court feels that no useful purpose would be served in continuing the present case against the petitioner as the same would be an abuse of process of law. The informant and the injured having clearly stated that the injuries in question were sustained due to the accident of Luna, and not by assault, this Court feels that no purpose would be served in proceeding with the case further against the petitioner and as all other witnesses have turned hostile in the case, there is every likelihood that the case will end in acquittal.
7. In the facts and circumstances, relying upon the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (2003) 25 OCR (SC) 99 : 2003 (II) ORL (SC) 101 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh reported in 2004 AIR SCW 6791 : 2003 (II) OLR 238, in the case of Sridhar Pani v. State of Orissa and Anr. reported in (2003) 25 OCR 447 and in the case of Kanhu Behera v. State of Orissa reported in (2005) II OLR 386 this Court feels that ends of justice would be better served if the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 169/1995 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Banki is quashed and I direct accordingly.
The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.
