ORDER A.K. Samantaray, J. - Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State. 2. By means of this application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. the Petitioner has come with a prayer for quashing the order of cognizance and issuance of process dated 15.9.2005 passed by Learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No. 84 of 2005 as per Annexure-2. 3. The brief fact of the case, as submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and as revealed from this application, is that this Petitioner along with seven other co-accused persons were arrayed as accused in the aforementioned G.R. Case and cognizance of the offence u/s s. 365, 307, 323, 324/34 Indian Penal Code was taken on 15.9.2005 and since the Petitioner was shown as absconder in the chargesheet, Learned SDJM directed for issue of NBW fixing 24.10.2005 for his production. The NBW was not executed and the case was split up as against this Petitioner and was committed to the Court of Session and the trial was taken up by the C.J.M.-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Puri A full-fledged trial commenced and in the said trial in S.T. No. 153/328 of 2005 the Learned Asst. Sessions Judge recorded that since there was absolutely no evidence on record to implicate the accused persons with the alleged commission of the offence u/s s. 365, 307/ 34, Indian Penal Code and held that the prosecution has failed miserably to bring home the charge against the accused persons, he acquitted them. 4. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that before the trial was commenced there was a compromise between the informant and the accused persons at the intervention of the gentlemen of the locality for which none of the witnesses deposed against the accused persons and even against the Petitioner. As I find from the judgment of the said Sessions Case as per Annexure 4, the informant himself has stated that they have compromised the case outside the Court at the intervention of the Bhadraloks, so he does not like to proceed against the accused persons and only due to some dispute he had filed the FIR and presently he does not remember about the case. 5. 5. This being the position, as revealed from the judgment which commenced after a full-fledged trial of seven accused persons, if the present accused/Petitioner is directed to face the trial in the split up. Sessions Case the result would be the same and it would only be a futile exercise killing the time of the Court. 6. In the circumstance, therefore, I direct that the order of cognizance dated 15.9.2005 as against this Petitioner passed by Learned S.D.J.M., Puri in G.R. Case No. 84 of 2005 be quashed and so also the proceeding of the G.R. Case. 7. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of. 8. Issue UCC as per rules. Criminal Misc Case disposed of