JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.—Applicant’s Counsel is permitted to make the correction in the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The case is being finally decided at the admission stage, as issuing notice to the opposite party No. 2 is not considered necessary. 3. By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “the Cr.P.C”), the applicants-accused Bholu, Waseem, Shamim and Sharif Nati have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the charge-sheet and entire proceedings of criminal case No. 8924 of 2006 (State v. Waseem and others) under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376, I.P.C., P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are that Smt. Tayyaba (opposite party No. 2) lodged an F.I.R. on 9.6.2008 at P.S. Najibabad (Bijnor), where a case under Sections 363, 366, I.P.C. was registered at crime No. 253 of 2002 against (1) Sharafat; (2) Anis; (3) Naseem; (4) Smt. Hajra; (5) Km. Fatma. The allegations made in the F.I.R., in brief, are that the accused persons enticed away Km. Mehtab minor daughter of the complainant aged about 15-16 years on 21.5.2002. After investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376, I.P.C. was submitted against thirteen persons including the applicants-accused. After taking cognizance, all the accused were summoned to face the trial. It appears that the applicants did not appear in the lower Court and hence, their case was separated and trial proceeds against other accused. On the case being committed to the Court of Session for trial, S.T. No. 746 of 2006 (State v. Sharafat and others) was registered, which was decided by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor vide judgment and order dated 29.1.2007, whereby the accused, who were facing trial have been acquitted. After acquittal of co-accused, the applicants-accused have approached this Court to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case pending against them for the same offences in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. 5. After acquittal of co-accused, the applicants-accused have approached this Court to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case pending against them for the same offences in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. 5. It was vehemently contended by Sri Zaidi, learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants-accused were not named in the F.I.R. and in her statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. as well in the Court, the prosecutrix Mehtab did not name the applicants-accused and hence, no offence is made out against them, because in her statement recorded in S.T. No. 746 of 2006, the prosecutrix has stated that she herself had gone away from her house due to ill treatment by her stepfather. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants is that continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants for the same offences would be an abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the proceeding of criminal case No. 8924 of 2006 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor against the applicants-accused should be quashed by this Court in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 6. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that after full trial, the co-accused of this case have been acquitted by the Sessions Judge, Bijnor vide judgment dated 29.1.2007 passed in S.T. No. 746 of 2006 and hence, on the basis of the principle of stare decisis also, the proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are liable to be quashed. 7. Having taken the submissions made by the parties Counsel into consideration, I am of the opinion that both the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned Counsel for applicants are well founded and must be accepted. 8. From the record it is revealed that the applicants-accused are not named in the F.I.R., which was lodged by opposite party No. 2 Smt. Tayyaba at P.S. Najibabad at case crime No. 253 of 2002. During investigation, statement of the prosecutrix Mehtab was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by the concerned Magistrate. Annexure-II to the accompanying affidavit is the copy of that statement. The applicants-accused have not been named in that statement also. Annexure III is the copy of supplementary medical report of Mehtab, according to which she was above eighteen years of age at the time of her medical examination in July 2002. Annexure-II to the accompanying affidavit is the copy of that statement. The applicants-accused have not been named in that statement also. Annexure III is the copy of supplementary medical report of Mehtab, according to which she was above eighteen years of age at the time of her medical examination in July 2002. In S.T. No. 746 of 2002, statement of Smt. Mehtab was recorded, copy whereof is Annexure-V. In this statement, the prosecutrix has specifically stated that being annoyed with her stepfather, she herself had gone away in her relation and her mother due to misunderstanding had lodged the F.I.R. From this statement of the prosecutrix, this fact is borne out that she was not enticed away by any person and she herself had gone away from her house in her relation. The complainant Smt. Tayyaba was also examined in the aforesaid session trial. Copy of her statement is also annexed as Annexure-V. She also did not support F.I.R. version and she has stated that her daughter Mehtab had herself gone away from her house due to annoyance with her stepfather Mohd. Omar. Other witnesses also did not support the case of prosecution. Having regard to the evidence led by the prosecution in S.T. No. 746 of 2006, the accused persons, who were facing trial, have been acquitted. Hence, in my opinion, continuance of criminal proceedings for the same offences against the applicants-accused is not in the interest of justice. Therefore, this Court in its inherent jurisdiction can quash the entire proceedings of criminal case No. 8924 of 2006 pending against the applicants-accused in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of All Cargo Movers (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and another, 2008 (60) ACC 375, has held that criminal proceedings should not be encouraged, when it is found to be mala fide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court and superior Courts while exercising inherent power should also strive to secure the ends of justice. 10. On the basis of the principle of stare decisis also, the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case against the applicants-accused may be quashed, as the co-accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376, I.P.C. after full trial vide judgment dated 29.1.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S.T. No. 746 of 2006. 10. On the basis of the principle of stare decisis also, the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case against the applicants-accused may be quashed, as the co-accused have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376, I.P.C. after full trial vide judgment dated 29.1.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S.T. No. 746 of 2006. 11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that it would be an abuse of the process of the Court, if aforesaid criminal proceedings against the applicants are allowed to continue. 12. Consequently, the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed. The charge-sheet of case crime No. 253 of 2002 of P.S. Najibabad and entire proceedings of criminal case No. 8924 of 2006 (State v. Waseem and others) under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376, I.P.C. pending against the applicants Bholu, Waseem, Shamim and Sharif Nati in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor are hereby quashed. The Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor for necessary action. ————