SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No.251 of 2021 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no.1. Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by respondent no.2 (wife of the applicant) against the applicant-Praveen Kaushik and his friend, namely, Anil Sharma under Section 376- B and Section 506 I.P.C. In her compliant, she has stated that her husband and his friend took her to Garhwali Dharmashala, Shravanath Nagar, Haridwar from Shivaliknagar, where they committed rape upon her on 19.01.2020 at 03:00 p.m. Pursuant to lodging of F.I.R., investigation was conducted, in which the Investigating Officer submitted Final Report in respect of charges levelled against the applicant and another accused was charged under Section 376-B and Section 506 I.P.C. The Final Report was accepted by the Magistrate. Thereafter, his wife moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and, on her application, applicant was summoned to face the trial under the aforesaid Sections. During the interregnum, trial proceeded against the co-accused, namely, Anil Sharma and learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.S.C., District Haridwar vide order dated 08.07.2024 acquitted the co- accused, namely, Anil Sharma from the charges levelled against him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the role and the witnesses are the same, therefore, it would be a futile exercise, if applicant is directed to face the trial for the offences, in which co-accused has already been acquitted. In order to buttress his argument, he placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 164, wherein the Court held that when there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination. 4. In view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the order impugned in this criminal revision. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.S.C., Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.99 of 2020 is set aside. (Alok Mahra, J.) 04.09.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dddb7 393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98744 6351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.09.08 15:33:37 +05'30'