JUDGMENT K S Mudagal, J. - "Whether the proceeding in S.C.No.1159/2018 on the file of LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru against the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of the Court?" is the question involved in this case. 2. Petitioner is accused No.7 in S.C.No.1159/2018 arising out of Crime No.225/2013 of Chandra Layout police station. The petitioner and accused Nos.1 to 6 were charge sheeted in the case for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 323, 363, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC on the basis of the complaint of CW.1 Prashanth. 3. It is alleged that on 26.05.2013 at about 9.30 p.m. due to some previous ill-will, when CW.1 was proceeding near 8th Cross, Shivanandanagara accused waylaided him and kidnapped him on motorbike took him near Shakthi Garden, Kalyanagar. It was further alleged that accused Nos.1 to 7 assaulted CW.1 with stone and attempted to commit his murder. 4. On filing of the charge sheet, learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru took cognizance of the offences and registered the case in C.C.No.26829/2015. On committal, the case was assigned to LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.350/2016. Initially the petitioner appeared in the said case. Later, he remained absent. 5. Since, the petitioner and accused No.3 could not be secured, the case against them was split up. The learned LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru proceeded with the trial against accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6 in S.C.No.350/2016. On trial in S.C.No.350/2016, accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6 were acquitted by LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on 02.11.2018. 6. Split up case was registered against the petitioner in S.C.No.1159/2018 and assigned to LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. In S.C.No.1159/2018, notice to the surety of accused No.7 was issued and the bail bond was cancelled. Annexure-C order sheet in S.C.No.1159/2018 shows that on forfeiting the bail bond of surety of the petitioners and penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on her. However, on 23.09.2019, on the application of the surety, the penalty was reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and on depositing Rs.10,000/- the surety was discharged. 7. Thereafter, proclamation was issued against the petitioner. On 24.02.2020, the petitioner was produced before the Sessions Court and since then he is in judicial custody. However, on 23.09.2019, on the application of the surety, the penalty was reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and on depositing Rs.10,000/- the surety was discharged. 7. Thereafter, proclamation was issued against the petitioner. On 24.02.2020, the petitioner was produced before the Sessions Court and since then he is in judicial custody. The trial Court rejected his bail application on the ground that he jumped the bail condition. 8. Petitioner is seeking quashing of the proceedings against him in S.C.No.1159/2018 on the ground that co-accused were tried on the same charges and were acquitted. Therefore, he submits that even if trial is conducted against the petitioner, no purpose will be served. According to the petitioner's Counsel, the trial will be futile exercise and that amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. In support of his contentions, he relies upon an unreported judgment of this Court in Mohamed Parvez vs. State of Karnataka [Crl.P.No.868/2018 DD 23.03.2018]. 9. Learned HCGP submits that the petitioner is a proclaimed offender, therefore, he cannot seek the benefit of quashing of the proceedings, even if the co-accused were acquitted. He further submits that the conduct of the petitioner himself amounts to abuse of the process of the Court, therefore, if at all discretion to quash the proceedings has to be exercised, the petitioner shall deposit the bail bond amount. 10. Annexure-E copy of the judgment in SC No.350/2016 shows that accused in that case were acquitted on the ground that evidence of PW.1 the alleged victim does not inspire confidence of the Court and that was not corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses. The common allegations were made against the petitioner and other accused. Thus it is clear that even if case is proceeded against the petitioner, the result in all probabilities will the same. 11. In a similar circumstances, this Court in Mohamed Parvez's case referred to supra, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh, (2005) AIR SC 268 held that when the proceedings initiated against the co-accused on similar allegations ended in acquittal and that order attained finality proceedings against split up accused amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the case on hand is covered by the said judgment. 12. Therefore, the case on hand is covered by the said judgment. 12. But the only distinguishing factor is that the petitioner's bail bond was forfeited and he made surety to shed Rs.10,000/- by way of penalty. Apart from that, he caused avoidable diversion of resources of the State and the Court to secure him. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court for the lapses of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, it is appropriate to put the petitioner to terms for quashing the proceedings. Hence the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.1159/2018 arising out of Crime No.225/2013 of Chandra Layout police station on the file of LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru are hereby quashed. iii) The trial Court shall set the petitioner at liberty on he depositing before it Rs.10,000/- by way of penalty.