JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for availing the benefit of principle of stare decisis. A first information report was lodged by the contesting opposite party against six persons including the present applicant under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar on 20.1.2002 which was registered at case Crime No. 21 of 2002. A charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. It appears that some of the accused including the applicant had approached this Court and got the proceedings stayed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 62545 of 2002. The co-accused Vibhu, Vivek, Ravi, Rashmi, Nirmala and Brij Lal Santoshi have been given a clear verdict of acquittal vide judgment dated 5.11.2004. A certified copy of the judgment is annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit. It is, therefore, prayed that since the present applicant is also an accused in the same case crime number, the evidence is also common. The witnesses were declared hostile and finally the trial has ended in acquittal. In the circumstances, the claim of the applicant is that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction if allowed to continue against the applicant. It will only result in wastage of valuable time of the Court. If the trial is allowed to continue, it will be sheer formality and, therefore, the applicant has claimed that she should be given the benefit of principle of 'stare decisis' and proceedings should be quashed. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Narayan Rai v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2004 (1) J.I.C. 508 (Allahabad). I have gone through the judgment of acquittal in respect of the other co-accused and it is apparent that P.W.-l had supported the prosecution story in examination-in-chief but subsequently when he was recalled on 1.11.2004, he admitted that the accused had made no demand of dowry from his daughter and she was never subjected to cruelty whatsoever. There was certain differences between the husband and wife, thus as a result his daughter has come to her father's home. He had also admitted that both the daughters have been remarried and they have been given alimony during the divorce proceedings and in the circumstances, for want of evidence, the judgment of acquittal was recorded. I am satisfied that if the proceeding against the present applicant is allowed to continue, there will be no other outcome but for the same verdict which has been recorded in the other case.
3. In the circumstances, 1 allow this application and grant the benefit of principle of stare decisis and criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant on the basis of first information report registered at case Crime No. 21 of 2002, under Sections 498A, 323 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar is quashed. The application is allowed.