JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP-II for the respondent - State. Perused the records. 2. The petitioner is arrayed as A-4 in SC Nos.64/2012 and thereafter, he was split up due to his abscondance. Other accused persons i.e., A-1 to A-3, A5, A6, A8 and A9 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge and ultimately, the trial Court has acquitted the said accused persons for the offence punishable under sections 143, 120B, 506, 307, 115 read with Section 149 of IPC and also u/s.5, 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein also stands on the same footing as that of A5, who was already acquitted by the trial Court. The charge sheet allegations clearly discloses that the witness PW-2 was working in a Jewellary shop of Suresh Baliga (PW-5) which is situated at Bantwala market and one Radhakrishna Shenoy and Hamza-PW7 were also working with them. It was stated that the owners of the shop i.e., Suresh Baliga and his brother Nagendra Baliga were receiving threatening calls from foreign country since last one and half months prior to the lodging of the complaint. 4. The complainant further submitted that PW-5 and his brother received threatening calls in demand of Rs.2 crores, failing which, they would be eliminated. Therefore, they intimated the same to Bantwal Police Station and a case has been registered and after thorough investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet stating that, other accused persons were instructed by A4 and A5 for the purpose of giving threat calls and also to cause damage to the complainant and others. Therefore, they intimated the same to Bantwal Police Station and a case has been registered and after thorough investigation, the Police have filed charge sheet stating that, other accused persons were instructed by A4 and A5 for the purpose of giving threat calls and also to cause damage to the complainant and others. Accordingly, it is further stated that on 1.9.2007, at about 7.30 p.m., when PW-2 Ravindra and PW-7 were in the shop, they were preparing to close the shop at that time, a motor cycle ridden by the rider and pillion rider came near the shop and thinking that PW-2 is Suresh Baliga, there was a shoot out to kill him with pistol or revolver and the bullets hit the glass of the showroom at the front creating a hole etc., Therefore, on such allegations, after investigation, the Police have come to the conclusion that accused No.1 gave the motor cycle to A9 and A10; A-9 and A-10 acted on the instruction of A4 and A5 and tried to kill PW-5. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses as PWs.1 to 29 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P34 and MOs.1 to 11. After thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court at paragraph 37 disbelieved the story of the prosecution that, A4 and A5 have actually gave instructions to A9 and A10 and A1 provided the motor cycle to A9 and A10. So, it clearly discloses that A4 and A5 are the abettors who have given instructions to others to commit such an offence. When the offence itself has not been proved and the accused persons i.e., A1, A2, A3, A5, A6, A8 and A9 have already been acquitted on the ground that no sufficient materials are available and the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the main accused have already been acquitted and one of the accused i.e., A5, who stand on the same footing as that of petitioner, is also acquitted, in my opinion, petitioner is also entitled for the benefit of acquittal. 6. In this background, it is worth to refer to an unreported the decision of this court in SAIBANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200008/2015 DATED 23.01.2015 by referring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in ILR 2015 KAR Page 970 [HYDER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA], AIR 2005 SCC 268 [CBI VS. 6. In this background, it is worth to refer to an unreported the decision of this court in SAIBANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200008/2015 DATED 23.01.2015 by referring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in ILR 2015 KAR Page 970 [HYDER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA], AIR 2005 SCC 268 [CBI VS. AKHILESH SINGH] and 2002(1) KCCR 1 [MUNEER AHMED QURESHI, MUNEER @ GAUN MUNEER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT POLICE, in order to ascertain whether this court can quash the proceedings against the co-accused, when the other accused have already been acquitted. In this regard, in a decision reported in Criminal Petition No.4796/2017 dated 05.07.2017, this Court has extensively relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, particularly in the decisions reported in (2001) 3 Kant.L.J. 551 [MOHAMMED ILIAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA] and ILR 2005 KAR. 1822 [THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.C. NARASEGOWDA]. Therefore, before adverting to the factual aspects of this case, it is worth to refer the decision in the case of Akhilesh Singh (supra), wherein, it was held that: "Quashing of charge and discharge of the accused when an accused who alleged to have hatched conspiracy and who had motive to kill the deceased were already discharged, that matter had attained finality, the discharge of co-accused by High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with case against co- accused held proper." 7. In Muneer Ahmed Qureshi's case (supra), this Court has held that: - "Entire case of the prosecution as against six accused is practically inseparable and individual one and especially when the Judgment of acquittal is passed, when P.W.1 denies the entire incident or the role of the accused. This reasoning of acquittal would also definitely enure to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner is tried there cannot be any other material other than what is already produced and considered by Trial Court. In such circumstances it will be an exercise in futility to make the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of crime, and then to be acquitted. Holding that the proceeding against the accused person who was absconding and subsequently against whom a split up charge sheet was filed was quashed." 8. In such circumstances it will be an exercise in futility to make the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of crime, and then to be acquitted. Holding that the proceeding against the accused person who was absconding and subsequently against whom a split up charge sheet was filed was quashed." 8. If the allegations made against this petitioner and the other accused persons are one and the same and it is indivisible and also inseparable in nature and the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution is also one and the same, in such an eventuality and if the co-accused has already acquitted of such materials on record, the absconding accused or the other accused persons who are not tried is not entitled for the same benefit for acquittal. 9. Under the above said circumstances, if the trial is ordered to be continued or to be held against this petitioner, it would be simply waste of judicial time. Therefore, I am of the opinion, this petition deserves to be allowed on the ground of parity. Hence, the following: ORDER The Petition is allowed. All further proceedings in CC No.34/2016 (Crime No.182/2009) which is a split up charge sheet filed against the petitioner arising out of Crime No.182/2009 on the file of Bantwal, D.K. Mangalore are hereby quashed.