G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of case No. 2 of 1986 pending in the Court of Special Judge Mirzapur. ( 2 ) A fair price shop being run by Sadhan Sahakari Samiti (a Co-operative Society) at Persanpur Sindhora in district Mirzapur was inspected by Mewa Lal Yadav, Senior Marketing Inspector. He found some irregularity in the distribution of Sugar and other essential commodities. Accordingly he lodged a FIR under Section 3/7 of the E. C. Act against the applicant Aditya Prasad Shukla who was secretary of the Society and Ravi Datt Singh who was incharge salesman. ( 3 ) THE applicant filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. in this Court which was admitted and further proceedings of the case were stayed by the order dated 19-5-86. The other co-accused namely Ravi Datt Singh did not file any petition and consequently the case against him proceeded in the trial Court. It has been stated in the affidavit filed in support of criminal Misc. Application No. 1112/98 (Aditya Prasad Shukla v. State) that on 11-4-94 the State Government issued a Government order directing the public prosecutors through out the State to withdraw all cases under Section 3/7 E. C. Act which were pending in the Court of Special Judge. A copy of this Government order has been filed as Annexure 4 to the affidavit. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government order the public prosecutor moved an application under Section 321, Cr. P. C. in case No. 2 of 1986 in the Court of Special Judge Mirzapur for withdrawal of the case. The learned Special Judge by his order dated 1-6-95 allowed the application moved by the public prosecutor and discharged the accused Ravi Datt Singh and his bail bonds were cancelled. Thus a co-accused of the same case stands discharged as the State moved an application for withdrawal of the case. However, no such order could be passed in favour of the applicant Aditya Prasad Shukla as proceedings against him had been stayed by the High Court on 19-5-1986 in the present petition. Thus a co-accused of the same case stands discharged as the State moved an application for withdrawal of the case. However, no such order could be passed in favour of the applicant Aditya Prasad Shukla as proceedings against him had been stayed by the High Court on 19-5-1986 in the present petition. ( 4 ) SRI D. N. Misra has submitted that in view of the fact that a co-accused of the same case has been discharged, the prosecution of the applicant would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The applicant was the secretary of the Society while Ravi Datt Singh was the incharge Salesman. The allegations in the FIR are that in the sale and distribution of sugar and other essential commodities irregularities had been committed. So it was Ravi Datt Singh who was primarily responsible for the commission of the offence. The applicant had also been arrayed as an accused as he was secretary of Sadhan Sahakari Samiti, the co-operative society which was running the fair price shop. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, I think it will be unjust to allow the prosecution of the applicant when the principal accused who was responsible for committing the offence has been discharged by the learned Special Judge. The applicant cannot now avail the benefit of the Government order dated 11-4-94 by which the public prosecutors through out the State had been directed to withdraw all the cases under Section 3/7 of the E. C. Act as subsequently the said Government order was rescinded by the State Government. Had the applicant not filed the present petition and obtained a stay order, the case against him too would have been withdraw. However that should not be a ground to treat him differently from Ravi Datt Singh who got the benefit of the Government order. Principle of parity is applied in criminal cases and co-accused of the same case should not be treated in a manner which may cause prejudice to him. I am therefore, of the opinion that the proceedings against the applicant should also be quashed in order to maintain parity with Ravi Datt Singh. ( 5 ) IN the result the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The proceedings of case No. 2 of 1986 pending in the Court of Special Judge Mirzapur are quashed against the applicant. Petition allowed. .