Karnataka High Court
Riyaz vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
W.P. No.8430/2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
RIYAZ
S/O SULEMAN M
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT SITE NO.226
6TH BLOCK, KRISHNAPURA
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-575 032 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SURATHKAL POLICE STATION
D.K.DISTRICT, REP. BY THE S.P.P.
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
2. RAJESH
S/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.283, 5TH BLOCK
KRISHNAPURA
KATIPALLA VILLAGE
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT-575 032 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W
SEC.482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C. NO. 2340/2008
(CRIME NO. 171/1998) OF SURATHKAL POLICE
STATION, D.K., DISTRICT ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC III
COURT AT MANGALURU AT ANNEXURE-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the Respondent No.1-State.
2. Notice to be issued to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with. Perused the records.
3. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the case in C.C. No.2340/2008 arising out of Crime No.171/1999 on Surathkal Police Station registered against the petitioner/accused along with others for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 504 r/w. 149 IPC, which is now pending on the file of the Court of JMFC-III and Mangaluru, on the ground that other few accused persons who tried in the same case, were already acquitted of aforesaid charges. 3
4. Before adverting to the factual aspects of this case, I feel it just, necessary and worth to note here a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in SAIBANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200008/2015 DATED 23.01.2015 by referring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in ILR 2015 KAR Page 970 [HYDER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA], AIR 2005 SCC 268 [CBI VS. AKHILESH SINGH] and 2002(1) KCCR 1 [ MUNEER AHMED QURESHI, MUNEER @ GAUN MUNEER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT POLICE, in order to ascertain whether this court can quash the proceedings against the co-accused, when the other accused have already been acquitted. In this regard, in a decision reported in Criminal Petition No.4796/2017 dated 05.07.2017, this Court has extensively relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, particularly in the decisions reported in (2001) 3 Kant.L.J. 551 [MOHAMMED ILIAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA] and ILR 2005 KAR. 1822 [THE STATE 4 OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.C. NARASEGOWDA].
Therefore, before adverting to the factual aspects of this case, it is worth to refer the decision in the case of Akhilesh Singh (supra), wherein, it was held that:
"Quashing of charge and discharge of the accused when an accused who alleged to have hatched conspiracy and who had motive to kill the deceased were already discharged, that matter had attained finality, the discharge of co-accused by High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with case against co-accused held proper."
In Muneer Ahmed Qureshi's case (supra), this Court has held that: -
"Entire case of the prosecution as against six accused is practically inseparable and individual one and especially when the Judgment of acquittal is passed, when P.W.1 denies the entire incident or the role of the accused. This reasoning of acquittal would also definitely enure to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner is tried there cannot be any 5 other material other than what is already produced and considered by Trial Court. In such circumstances it will be an exercise in futility to make the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of crime, and then to be acquitted.
Holding that the proceeding
against the accused person who was
absconding and subsequently against whom a split up charge sheet was filed was quashed."
5. In the above said dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court, the court has to see whether the materials placed before the court against the acquitted accused, when compared to the allegations made against the petitioner herein, are indivisible and inseparable in nature so as to come to a definite conclusion that, putting-up of the petitioner to trial is a futile exercise and waste of judicial time.
6. The factual aspects of this case disclose that, the Surathkal Police have registered a case against the petitioner and others in all total 19 accused persons 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 506 r/w. 149 of IPC on the allegations that, on 30.12.1998 at 8.00 am., all the accused persons by forming an unlawful assembly, at chokkabettu junction, Idya Village, Surathkal, with a common object, being armed with deadly weapons such as stones, clubs, sickles, wooden sticks etc., have committed the aforesaid offences and in that connection, they have committed a riot and it is alleged that, they restrained CWs. 1 & 2, assaulted CW.1 with stone and assaulted CW.2 with a knife and caused bleeding injuries and also threatened them with dire consequences of killing them. After completion of the investigation, the police have submitted a charge sheet against all the accused persons. However, some of the accused persons were not available for trial as such they were split up. One amongst them is the petitioner who was arraigned as Accused No.8 in the said case and due to his abscondance, a separate split-up charge sheet has been filed in C.c. No.2340/2008, which is sought to e quashed by the petitioner.
7
7. The other accused persons viz., A1, A2, A4 to A7, A9 to A14 and A17 were tried by the trial Court and vide judgment dated 09.11.2006 in C.C. No.23886/2000, they were acquitted of the above said charges.
8. As could be seen from the charges framed against the accused persons and the points formulated for consideration by the trial Court, the allegations are made against all the accused persons are one and the same and they are inseparable and indivisible in nature and there are no separate and distinct allegations made against the present petitioner so as to continue the prosecution against him.
9. In the above circumstances, considering the factual aspects and legal dictum as noted above, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit of acquittal of aforesaid offences, as that of the benefit extended to other accused persons by way acquittal in the judgment noted above. Hence, I have no hesitation to quash the proceedings against this petitioner also, 8 otherwise, it would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the following order.
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the case in C.C. No.2340/2008 (arising out of Crime No.171/1998 of Surathkal Police) registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 14, 147, 148, 341, 324, 504 r/w. 149 of IPC pending on the file of JMFC-III Court, Mangaluru, and all further proceedings therein, insofar as it relates to this petitioner herein concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE