JUDGMENT Hon’ble N.A. Moonis, J.—The instant 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed by the applicants for quashing of charge-sheet and the cognizance order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jyotiba Phule Nagar in criminal case No. 1120/9 of 2002, arising out of case crime No. 314 of 1999 under Section 201 IPC, P.S. Kanth, District J. P. Nagar. 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that a first information report was lodged by the opposite party No. 2 on 5.11.1999 at 5.05 pm in respect of the incident occurred in the intervening night of 31.10.1999 to 1.11.1999 against Manoj Kumar Gupta, Smt. Saroj, Chandrabhushan Gupta and Smt. Vineeta Gupta and Deepchand alias Dibbu who had committed the murder of his sister Smt. Meenakshi Gupta alias Mata Jain and surreptitiously disposed of her body, which was registered as case crime No. 314 of 1999, under Sections 197, 149, 302, 201, 506 IPC. According to the first information report the sister of the complainant was married to Manoj Kumar Gupta ten years prior to the incident according to the Hindu customary rites and sufficient amount of dowry was given. But after some time the husband and her in-laws started torturing her and used to batter her. The husband had illicit relations with his own sister in-law. In the night of 31.10.1999 the complainant had received a massage from one Vishal Jain to whom her brother in law had informed that the condition of his sister is serious and the doctors has left all hope. On receiving this information when the complainant arrived at her matrimonial house on 1.11.1999 at about 10 :00 pm the dead-body of his sister was lying there and when he inquired about her such condition, the in-laws disclosed that she has taken tablets of sulphas. But from her appearance neck was broken and blood was clotted on her head and nose and the body was bluish in colour. The neigbours disclosed that her jeth and jethani, mother in-law and two maternal uncles whose names are Deepchand alias Dibbu and Rajjo were involved in the commission of her murder. When the complainant went to lodge the first information report at the police station they came to know that they are performing last rites of Minakshi and as soon they reached at the cremation ground he found that they had already performed cremation by putting her on fire. When the complainant went to lodge the first information report at the police station they came to know that they are performing last rites of Minakshi and as soon they reached at the cremation ground he found that they had already performed cremation by putting her on fire. They had also threatened that in case any report is lodged he will meet the same fate. After registering the first information report the police set in motion and investigated the case and submitted the charge-sheet against Manoj Kumar Gupta, Chandra Bhushan Gupta and Smt. Vineeta Gupta under Sections 302, 201 IPC. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, J.P. Nagar. On account of death of Smt. Saroj Gupta during trial, the trial was abated against her and the charges were framed against the aforesaid persons and the trial proceeded against them, which ended in their acquittal by order dated 3.7.2007. During trial proceedings of the aforesaid accused persons the mother of the opposite party No. 2 had moved an application for making a request for investigation of the case through C.B.C.I.D. and the State Government directed to conduct investigation through C.B.C.I.D., who recorded the statements of all the persons already recorded by the civil police and submitted the charge-sheet against the present applicants under Section 201 IPC, as they were also present and cooperated the other accused persons in the cremation of the dead-body of the deceased. On the basis of charge-sheet submitted on 18.3.2002, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, J. P. Nagar had taken cognizance by order dated 27.3.2002. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the trial of the co-accused persons proceeded in Session Trial No. 102 of 2000, arising out of case crime No. 314 of 1999 and were acquitted by order dated 3.7.2007 and against the applicants only the charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 201 IPC, therefore, the trial against the applicants is liable to be quashed. In this regard the learned counsel for the applicant has been relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Wattan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2004(3) SCC 700 and has contended that in that case also the learned Session Court has acquitted all the accused of offence under Section 302, 149 IPC. The Session Court acquitted all the accused persons under Sections 302, 149 IPC. The Session Court acquitted all the accused persons under Sections 302, 149 IPC. For offence under Section 306 IPC Baldev Singh was held guilty, the other appellants were acquitted from the charge under Section 306 IPC but they were however found guilty of offence under Section 201 IPC. Against the conviction an appeal was filed by the convicted persons as well as by the State where all the appeals were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. 4. It is further contended that in the said case also the sole issue was with regard to the conviction of appellants for offence under Section 201 IPC. The Apex Court had set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 201 IPC on the ground that in the absence of evidence it cannot be assumed on suspicion alone that the appellants must have known or must have reason to believe that Baldev Singh abetted in commission of offence and by being present at the cremation ground they caused the evidence of commission of the offence to disappear with intention to screen Baldev Singh from legal punishment. The Apex Court had relied upon the decision of Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354 where it is held that in order to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed, mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient. It has to be proved that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with intention to screen the offender from legal punishment caused the evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false. 5. It has further been contended that in the case of Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502 , the Apex Court had set aside the conviction of appellant for an offence under Section 201 IPC, relying upon the aforesaid decision of Palvinder Singh. 5. It has further been contended that in the case of Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502 , the Apex Court had set aside the conviction of appellant for an offence under Section 201 IPC, relying upon the aforesaid decision of Palvinder Singh. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the applicants has filed a supplementary affidavit and has contended that the charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants only under Section 201 IPC by the C.B.C.I.D. as during investigation it was found that the applicants were also present at the time of cremation of the body of the deceased and thus they have also joined with the other accused applicants in the commission of offence. The other accused persons have already been acquitted from the charge under Section 302/34, 201/34, 506 IPC by the trial Court by order dated 3.7.2007, therefore, the applicants are also liable to be acquitted as the charge-sheet has only been submitted against them under Section 201 IPC. It would be a futile exercise of trial of the applicants when others accused persons have already been acquitted. 6. Per contra the learned AGA has contended that the charges are yet to be framed against the applicants which will only be framed after going through the material collected by the C.B.C.I.D. in the case of applicants. It is not open to this Court to interfere in such matter in the exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicants cannot take advantage by the acquittal of other accused persons merely because charge-sheet has been submitted only under Section 201 IPC against them. In the first information report the complainant has categorically mentioned the name of two matrimonial uncles of the victim who are Deep Chandra alias Dibbu and Rajendra Kumar alias Rajju who are the applicants No. 2 and 3 and the name of applicant No. 1 also came into light during investigation done by the C.B.C.I.D. and hence submitted the charge-sheet against them way back on 18.3.2002 and the applicants have somehow kept themselves away from the proceedings of the trial and on account of which the trial was proceeded only against the other accused persons which ended in acquittal on 3.7.2009. The present petition was filed by the applicants for quashing of proceeding as cognizance was taken by order dated 27.3.2002 and on 25.4.2002 this Court had only issued the notices to the opposite party No. 2 and has not granted any interim order in their favour, and only when the other accused persons were acquitted now an application alongwith supplementary affidavit has been moved. The contention that no case under Section 201 IPC is made out against them as they were not charge-sheeted under the substantive offence under Section 302 IPC, hence the proceedings initiated against the applicants is liable to be quashed is unwarranted. The Apex Court’s decision in the case of Wattan Singh and Sukhram’s case (supra) are not applicable in the present set of facts and circumstances. Since the charges have not yet been framed against them therefore it is too premature to say that the applicants were not involved in the case. 7. I am not in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that if some of accused are acquitted in a trial by giving benefit of doubt with separate evidence recorded therein the other accused have also to be acquitted. In my view the evidence will have to be recorded in the applicants’ case separately and the evidence in the earlier acquittal case cannot be looked into in the present case. This is because Section 43 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that the judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41, 42 are irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provisions of these Act. Section 40 can bar a second suit or holding of a second trial of the same accused but it does not bar the trial of the another accused. Section 41 also refers to a final judgment, order or decree of competent Court in the exercise of probate matrimonial admiralty and insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character or this Section has also no application in the present case. Section 41 also refers to a final judgment, order or decree of competent Court in the exercise of probate matrimonial admiralty and insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character or this Section has also no application in the present case. Section 42 states that the judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 41 are relevant if they relates to matter of public relevant to the inquiry but the judgment in consideration here does not relate to the public nature, hence Section 42 also does not apply. Therefore the judgment and evidence therein is irrelevant for arriving at a finding about the innocence or guilt of the applicants in the present case. The learned counsel for the applicants had tried to impress this Court to appreciate the evidence in the case in which the co-accused have been acquitted and that the charge-sheet only under Section 201 IPC has been submitted against the applicants. The principle of stare decisis has been considered in several cases by this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. ‘Stare Decisis’ is only doctrine derived from stare decisis et-non quieta movere which differs from that of doctrine of res-judicata in the following ways : (i) res-judicata applies to the decision in the dispute while stare decisis applies as to the Rule of law involved. (ii) the former binds only the parties and their successors, whereas the latter binds everyone. (iii) res-judicata applies to all Courts but stare decisis is brought into operation only by the decisions of higher Courts. (iv) The former takes effect after the time for appeal is passed, the latter operates at once. (Dias of Jurisprudence, Edition 1964) 8. In the case of Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradash, AIR 1965 SC 1037 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the said question. The relevant extract from paragraph No. 6 of the said case is reproduced below : “6. We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment in Krishna Govind Patel’s case reported in AIR 1963 SC 1413 does not assist the appellant at all. The relevant extract from paragraph No. 6 of the said case is reproduced below : “6. We are therefore of the opinion that the judgment in Krishna Govind Patel’s case reported in AIR 1963 SC 1413 does not assist the appellant at all. On the other hand we think that the judgments earlier referred on which the High Court relied clearly justify the view that inspite of acquittal of a person in one case it is open to the Court in another case to proceed on the basis - of course if the evidence warrants it - that the acquitted person was guilty of the offence of which he had been tried in the other cases and to find in the later case that the person tried in it was guilty of an offence under Section 34 by virtue of having committed the offence alongwith the acquitted person. There is nothing in principle to prevent this being done. The principle of Sambasivam’s case 1950 AC 458 has no application here because the two cases we are concerned with are against two different persons, though for the commission of the same offence. Further more, as we have already said each case has to be decided on the evidence led in it and this irrespective of any view of the same act that might have been taken on different evidence lead in another case.” 9. In the case of Rajanrai v. State of Bihar, 2006 54 ACC 15 SC the Apex Court considering the earlier judgments formulated the following opinion : “We are clearly of the view that the judgment of acquittal rendered in the trial of the other four accused persons is wholly irrelevant in the appeal arising out of the trial of the appellant Rajaramrai as the said judgment was not admissible under the provision of Section 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act. Every case has to be considered on the evidence adduced therein. Case of four acquitted accused persons was decided on the basis of evidence led there, while the case of the present appellant has to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of his trial.” 10. Every case has to be considered on the evidence adduced therein. Case of four acquitted accused persons was decided on the basis of evidence led there, while the case of the present appellant has to be decided only on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of his trial.” 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kumari Rinki v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 3 JIC 267 All concluded its opinion on the point as under : (I) That the acquittal of the co-accused in a separate trial cannot be made basis for quashing the proceeding against another co-accused who is being separately tried on the principle that each case has to be decided on the evidence adduced in that case. (II) Judgment of acquittal rendered in one case is not relevant in the case of co-accused separately tried in as much as Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act deal with relevancy of certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty and insolvency jurisdiction and therefore inapplicable to a criminal case.” 11. The cases sited by the learned counsel for the applicants are not applicable in the present set of facts and circumstances as after evidence recorded against all the accused persons some of the accused persons were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. It was held that no case under Section 201 IPC was made against the accused persons which was passed only after going through the evidence on record. To bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC there should be cogent evidence that the accused knew or had information sufficient to led him to belief that the offence has been committed and the accused has caused the evidence to disappear, in order to screen the offender known or unknown. 12. The applicants cannot derived any benefit about his own doing by avoiding to face the trial when there was no interim order in their favour in the instant case. Therefore in the light of the decisions of this Court as well of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the proceedings in question does not warrant interference by this Court. This application is devoid of any merits and as such it is accordingly dismissed. Therefore in the light of the decisions of this Court as well of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the proceedings in question does not warrant interference by this Court. This application is devoid of any merits and as such it is accordingly dismissed. However, they are directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from today and may move discharge application and the Court below is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. —————