AJAY MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Sharad Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for opposite party No. 2 and the learned AGA for the State.

(2.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding criminal case No. 583 of 2005, State v. Ajay Malhotra, under Section 323 and 504, I. P. C. pending in the Court of III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, arising out of case crime No. 371 of 1997, P. S. Sector 20, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The incident took place on 2/5/1997 at 10. 00 p. m. and First Information Report was lodged on 4-5-1997 at 8. 20 p. m. Three persons Ajay Malhotra (applicant), Vineet Grover and Deepak Rana were named.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has argued that from the perusal of the judgment (Annexure-7) it is amply clear that the complainant of the case Col. V. P. S. Chauhan did not come forward to support the prosecution case as such the present proceedings against the applicant before the trial Court is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that to the facts and circumstances of the present case principle of stare decisive is squarely applicable and proceedings against the applicant are liable to be quashed. In support of the contention the learned Counsel has placed reliance on Wazir Yadav v. State of U. P. , 2004 Criminal Misc. Application No. 378 of 2004, where it has been held that if the circumstances of the case are such that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings against the accused and the result of the proceedings is very obvious, it can safely be concluded that even if the trial is allowed to continue it will only end in the order of acquittal and no fruitful purpose would be gained if the proceedings are allowed to continue in respect of other accused. Further reliance has been placed in the case of Manoj v. State of U. P. , 2004 (49) ACC 302, where this Court has held that since the two accused were acquitted and the same evidence is to be adduced for the second time, it will amount to wastage of time as there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction.