JUDGMENT SHASHI KANT, J. 1. Heard Shri Aditya Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the Charge Sheet No. 171A dated 15.06.2009 filed by the Investigating Officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Case Crime No. 774/08, U/s 307 I.P.C. at Police Station Raunahi, District Faizabad and for quashing of the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid charge sheet. 3. A First Information Report as Case Crime no. 774 of 2008, under Section 307 I.P.C. has been lodged against the applicant and other co accused. Wherein, after investigation a charge sheet, annexure 5, has been filed against the co accused Abdul Latif and Sunil Mishra whose trial has been held and after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses they have been acquitted vide judgment and order dated 24.03.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. IIIrd Faizabad, in S.T. No. 502 of 2008, State v. Abdul Latif & Ors. under Section 307 I.P.C. Police Station-Raunahi, District-Faizabad (annexure 4). 4. Subsequent to that charge sheet, annexure 1, has been filed against the applicant and two other co accused Arjun Singh and Manoj Kumar Mishra on 15.06.2009 and after trial, another co accused Manoj Kumar Mishra, against whom subsequent charge sheet has been filed alongwith the applicant has also been acquitted? vide judgment and order dated 05.01.2016, as is evident from the certified copy of the judgment and order dated passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Faizabad in S.T. No. 96 A/10 State v. Manoj Mishra under Section 307 I.P.C. Police Station-Raunahi, District-Faizabad, which is available on record. 5. As the evidence of prosecution witnesses have not been relied against the co accused, Abdul Latif, Sunil Mishra and Manoj Kumar Mishra. In view of the above, same evidence of those prosecution witnesses also could not be relied against the applicant as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pritam Singh And Anr. vs The State Of Punjab, reported in, (1956) AIR SC 415 and by this Court in case of Diwan Singh v. State, reported in, (1965) 2 AllCriC 118 as well as in Sanju@ Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr, (2005) 3 JIC 243 (All). Paragraph nos. vs The State Of Punjab, reported in, (1956) AIR SC 415 and by this Court in case of Diwan Singh v. State, reported in, (1965) 2 AllCriC 118 as well as in Sanju@ Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr, (2005) 3 JIC 243 (All). Paragraph nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the judgment passed in case of Sanju @ Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr. (supra)? is being reproduced below: "5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the given circumstances, the principle of Stare decisis is applicable and conviction of present applicant cannot be procured. The judgment of this Court reported in, Pradeep @ Bhondu @ Bantoo v. State of U.P., 2005 51 AllCriC 955 has been relied upon in which reliance was placed on Diwan Singh v. State, (1965) 2 AllCriC 118. "If two persons are prosecuted though separately, under the same charge for offences having been committed in the same transaction and on the basis of the same evidence, and if one of them is acquitted for whatever may be the reason and the other is convicted, then it will create an, anomalous position in law and is likely to shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice." 6. It is settled view that this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, may quash the proceedings of the trial taking into account the principle of stare decisis. Whenever, there is no project of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the Court should not be wasted for holding trial only for the purpose of completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion of a future date. In such matter, it is always advisable to terminate the proceedings at the stage of discharge. 7. In the present case, the informant and the witnesses of recovery have not supported the prosecution case nor name the applicant as assailant. If the applicant is put to trial, the same evidence would be repeated and after wasting the precious time of the trial Court, the result would be acquittal. 8. Consequently, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. If the applicant is put to trial, the same evidence would be repeated and after wasting the precious time of the trial Court, the result would be acquittal. 8. Consequently, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings of ST o. 368 of 2000 with juvenile case No. 18 of 2002, State v. Sanju @ Sanjeev Kumar, under Sections 364/302/201 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kuraoli, District Mainpuri, arising out of case crime No. 201 of 2000 is hereby quashed. The applicant, if on bond need not surrender and the surrender bound/ personal bond shall stand discharged." 6. In view of the above his application deserves to be allowed and the charge sheet and the proceedings of the sessions trial is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the above contentions of learned counsel for the applicant but conceded that after full fledged trial the co accused Abdul Latif, Sunil Mishra and Manoj Kumar Mishra have been acquitted. 8. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record which reveals that after discussing the evidence of prosecution witness the co accused Abdul Latif, Sunil Mishra and Manoj Kumar Mishra have been acquitted. In these circumstances, principle of stare decisis, as referred in the above decisions is fully applicable to this case and in case the trial of applicant is permitted it would be a futile exercise only. 9. In view of the above this application is allowed. The Charge Sheet No. 171A dated 15.06.2009 filed by the Investigating Officer before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faizabad in Case Crime No. 774/08, U/s 307 I.P.C. at Police Station Raunahi, District Faizabad as well as the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid charge sheet is hereby quashed.