Parity with co-accused justified quashing of criminal proceedings where no factual distinction existed.

Criminal proceedings against an accused under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act were quashed because the allegations and factual position were identical to those of a co-accused whose proceedings had already been quashed by the High Court. The Court noted that the State had not challenged the earlier quashing order, and the material on record showed no factual distinction between the two accused. On that basis, the prior quashing order was treated as governing the appellant's case, and the proceedings against the appellant were rightly quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant were liable to be quashed on the ground that the allegations and factual position were on par with those against a co-accused whose proceedings had already been quashed.

Analysis: The appellant was accused no.2 in the case arising from offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The proceedings against accused no.5 had already been quashed by the High Court, and that order had not been challenged by the State. The material recorded showed that the appellant stood on the same footing as accused no.5, with no material factual distinction between them. In those circumstances, the earlier quashing order governed the appellant's case as well.

Conclusion: The proceedings against the appellant were rightly quashed.

---