JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. — The petitioners have filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No.1085(A) of 2006 arising out of Jajpur P.S. Case No. 236 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur. 2.The brief facts leading to the present case is that one Narendra Rout @ Routray, brother of Petitioner No.1-Surendra Kumar @ Surendra Routray, had married to Nandini Biswal in the year 2006 and her father Natabara Biswal lodged an F.I.R. and the same has been registered as Jajpur P.S. Case No. 236 of 2006 under Sections 498(A)/302/304(B)/34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the D.P. Act. In course of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 498(A)/304(B)/306/34 I.P.C. and 4 of D.P. Act against all the accused persons. The case of the husband of the deceased-Nandini, namely, Narendra Rout was split-up and he faced trial in S.T. Case No. 46 of 2007 where he was acquitted by the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jajpur on 28.3.2008. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that in view of the fact that the main accused, namely, Narendra Rout (husband of the deceased-Nandini) has been acquitted, no purpose would be served in prosecuting the present petitioners who had been implicated in the case being related to the main accused-Narendra Rout. Apart from the same, learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, no real purpose would be served by continuing the criminal proceeding against the present petitioners. 4.On perusal of the judgment dated 28th March, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jajpur in Sessions Trial No. 46 of 2007, it appears therefrom that the trial Court came to hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, directed acquittal of the accused from the offences under Sections 498/304(B)/306/34 I.P.C. and Section 4 of D.P. Act under provisions of Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The deposition of P.Ws. in the trial have been annexed as Annexure-2 series to the present application. On perusal of the same, it appears therefrom that P.W.2 is the mother, P.W.3 is the sister and P.W.4 is the father of the deceased-Nandini. in the trial have been annexed as Annexure-2 series to the present application. On perusal of the same, it appears therefrom that P.W.2 is the mother, P.W.3 is the sister and P.W.4 is the father of the deceased-Nandini. All of them have been turned hostile and were examined under Section 154 of the Evidence Act but one of them supported the prosecution case. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Aditya Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, (2008) 41 OCR-233 as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh, I in support of his contention that when the main accused has already been acquitted in the trial, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the other co-accused persons would amount to an abuse of the process of law, especially when there is bleak possibility of ultimate conviction. 6.Considering the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the facts of the present cease, I am of the considered view that continuation of the criminal proceeding against the present petitioners, would be an abuse of the process of law, especially since there is bleak possibility of any conviction and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceeding against the present petitioners and the end of justice would be best served if the proceeding in the split-up trial is quashed. Accordingly, the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 1085(A) of 2006 arising out of Jajpur P.S. Case No. 236 of 2006 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Jajpur is hereby directed to be quashed. 7.The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. CRLMC allowed.