Judgment :- Jawad Rahim, J: The petitioner who is facing charge for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC, is seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 257/2009 on the file of JMFC, Bilagi (waiting committal proceedings). 2. The prosecution case is based on the report of Mahadevi submitted on 24.12.2008 at the complainant Police Station, in which she alleged that her husband Shivappa had dispute which his four brothers namely, Yallappa, Gopal, Mallu and Shekhappa. All were residing together and availed loan for installation of pipeline to the agricultural land. The dispute arose between Shivappa and others for division of property and hence they are living separately. However, Shivappa (since deceased) demanded share in the property and contribution for pre-payment of loan. The brothers did not agree. They are waiting for opportunity to kill him. On 23.12.2008 during jatra of Dyammawwa in the village, Shivappa and his family members left their house and were watching drama. At that time, as the children were feeling sleepy, the complainant Mahadevi and her husband Shivappa went towards the house to leave the children. While they were on the way, Mahadevi noticed her husband’s brothers (accused herein) were following them. Thereafter, Shivappa also suspected they would harm the family and asked Mahadevi to take the children home and ran away from the place. As he was running, the accused followed Shivappa. Meanwhile, the complainant and her daughter took shelter near a shed belonging to Mr. Parappa Badiger. From the said placed they saw the accused assaulting Shivappa, consequent to which he suffered injuries. The complainant being scared returned home and waited for the whole night. Next day she went to the spot and saw her husband was dead. On that basis complaint was lodged and the brothers were arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 4. Petitioner was the 4th accused. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C. No. 50/2009 and three accused were put to trial. Petitioner was absconding. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and placed reliance on 19 documents and 19 material objects. However, during the trial, Mahadevi – PW1 – complainant, her daughter Bayakka – PW2 turned hostile. They retracted from their statement that accused No. 1 to 4 together killed Shivappa. 4. Petitioner was absconding. 3. During the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and placed reliance on 19 documents and 19 material objects. However, during the trial, Mahadevi – PW1 – complainant, her daughter Bayakka – PW2 turned hostile. They retracted from their statement that accused No. 1 to 4 together killed Shivappa. 4. The learned Trial Judge found no incriminating aspects in the evidence of all the six witnesses and acquitted three accused namely, Yallappa, Gopal and Mallappa. However, as the petitioner was absconding, charge was spilt and case in C.C. No. 257/2009 is pending committal proceedings. He now seeks to quash the proceedings on the ground that there is no material to proceed against him and if the witnesses are examined, they may repeat the same version. 5. Sri. Dilip Kumar, the learned Govt. Pleader representing the State does not dispute that accused No. 1 to 3, who were facing the charge on the same allegations as the petitioner, are granted acquittal in the trial by the Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 50/2009. Copy of the judgment dated 26.09.2009 is also produced. 6. I have also gone through the evidence of PW1 – Mahadevi and PW2 – Bayakka. Both are alleged to be eye-witnesses, but have totally retracted from their earlier version. They have given a clean chit to the accused No. 1 to 3 and absolved them of all the allegations. This has resulted in the acquittal. The petitioner is now facing charge in split up case C.C. No. 257/2009. Undoubtedly, on committal, he will have to be subjected to trial. Legally speaking, there is no impediment to conduct the trial against him. But the question is whether worth purpose will be served. This is because PW1 and PW2 having deposed in favour of accused Nos. 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 50/2009, may repeat the same version. Even if any change their version and indict the petitioner as the assailant of Shivappa, in such case also, it will be difficult to accept their version, because there will be two versions, one in favour of the prosecution and one in favour of the accused. Besides, if they were to tender such evidence giving version different from what they have already given in S.C. No. 50/2009, then undoubtedly they will be exposing themselves to perjury because which of the statement is true becomes immaterial. Besides, if they were to tender such evidence giving version different from what they have already given in S.C. No. 50/2009, then undoubtedly they will be exposing themselves to perjury because which of the statement is true becomes immaterial. The very fact that there will be two versions will expase them to action. 7. I am sure that the witnesses may not attempt such course. In the result, if the trial is conducted it will be only a formal trial and the very object of the trial will be lost. Being of this view, I am satisfied that the proceedings, if allowed to culminate in trial, the result will be against the prosecution. Being of this view, to avoid waste of time and money of the State, the best course will be to give quietus to this petition. 8. The petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 257/2009 on the file of the JMFC, Bilagi is hereby quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.