Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Yousuff vs State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34263
WP No. 4586 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 4586 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED YOUSUFF
S/O MR. BASHA A. R.,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.1, 1ST CROSS
YALLAMA KOLI STREET
HALASUR, BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI R.KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)
by NAGAVENI
Location: High AND:
Court of
Karnataka 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BIDADI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34263
WP No. 4586 of 2023
HC-KAR
2. T.KUMAR
S/O TAMBI ANNAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT VARAPACHUR
MUNJAN MUDUVAR POST
PENNAGARAM TALUK
DHARMAPURI DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU STATE - 622 203.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CHARGE SHEET FILED
BY THE R-1 POLICE IN C.C.NO.52/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 395, 412, 120- B IPC VIDE ANNX-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:34263
WP No. 4586 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner - accused No.4 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.113/2022, pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara, for the offences under Sections 395, 412, 120B of the IPC. The main charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.52/2014.
2. Heard Sri R. Kothwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Defacto - complainant is served and unrepresented.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
A complaint comes to be registered on 10.01.2013, alleging the ingredients of Section 395 of the IPC, against all the accused. The police after investigation file a charge sheet in C.C.No.52/2014. Accused Nos.1, 5 to 7 were available for trial and tried by the concerned Court in S.C.Nos.134/2022 and 79/2014. As the petitioner - accused No.4 at the relevant -4- NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR point in time was not available for trial, the police filed a split up charge sheet in C.C.No.113/2022 before the concerned Court. The concerned Court by its judgments of acquittal, both dated 06.06.2023, acquits accused Nos.1 and 5 to 7 on the score that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The petitioner as observed hereinabove was not available for trial at the relevant point in time, therefore, a split charge was drawn against him and the matter is sought to be continued in C.C.No.113/2022, which is a split up charge sheet from C.C.No.52/2014. The continuance of the trial has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner takes this Court through the order passed by the concerned Court which acquits accused Nos.1 and 5 to 7, to contend that since the offence is the ones punishable under Section 395 of the IPC, the reason so rendered to acquit accused Nos.1 and 5 to 7 would become applicable to the case of the petitioner as well.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would however refute the submission contending that the petitioner has escaped trial and should not be shown any indulgence. The petitioner should also come out clean in a full blown trial as the other accused have undergone.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The incident that happens on 09.01.2013 becomes a crime in Crime No.12/2013 and the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.52/2014 against all the accused.
Accused Nos.1, 5 to 7 stood acquitted by the judgments of acquittal of the concerned Court, both dated 06.06.2023. The reasons rendered by the concerned Court for acquitting accused Nos.5 to 7 in S.C.No.79/2014, read as follows:
"13. POINT NO.1:- According to the case of the Prosecution the alleged incident took place on the night of
08.01.2023. P.W.8/Sri.Murugeshan and P.W.9/Sri.Kumar were the drivers of the Lorry No.TN-52/6154, which was -6- NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR travelling from Thuthukudi to Gujarath by loading copper plates. At the time of alleged incident, P.W.9 was driving the said Lorry. The P.W.8 and 9 have deposed that the said Lorry was waylaid by one TATA Sumo vehicle, that when P.W.9 alighted the Lorry, the persons in the said TATA Sumo vehicle demanded to produce the bills, that in the said TATA Sumo vehicle it is written as R.T.O., that thereafter the said persons assaulted them and they took them in the said TATA Sumo vehicle to some places, that they also robbed Rs.15,000/-, Phones, ATM Cards and the documents of the said Lorry, that they tied cloths to their hands and legs and also eyes and thereafter the left them at Bengaluru-Mysuru Road, that the P.W.9 sustained grievous injuries and P.W.8 sustained simple injuries, and that the P.W.9 lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 before the Bidadi Police Station.
14. P.W.11/the then PSI of Bidadi Police Station Sri.K.Sadananda has deposed that he received Ex.P.1/Complaint and registered the case and sent the Ex.P.14/First Information Report to the Court.
15. P.W.12/the then Circle Inspector Ramanagara Rural Circle Sri.Bhaskar V.B., has deposed that he prepared the Ex.P.1/Panchanama, where the P.W.8 and 9 were left by the persons in the said TATA Sumo vehicle.
16. The P.W.12 has further deposed that he prepared Ex.P.2/Panchanama at the place of alleged incident of robbery.
17. The P.W.8 and 9 have deposed that the above- mentioned Ex.P.1 and 2 were prepared in their presence and they have signed the said Panchanamas.
18. PW.1/Sri.Vijay is the attesting witness to Ex.P.1 and
2. However he has not supported the case of Prosecution. Though he was treated as hostile nothing is elicited during his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor in favour of the Prosecution.
19. The P.W.11 has further deposed that on 16.01.2013 he received a credible information and in pursuance to the same, he went along with his team, to the place where -7- NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR the Lorry was parked and seized the said Lorry as per Ex.P.3/Panchanama and arrested Accused 3, 5 and 6.
20. P.W.2/Sri.Muniraju and P.W.5/Sri.Lakshmaiah are the attesting witnesses to Ex.P.3. However they have not supported the case of Prosecution. Though they were treated as hostile, nothing is elicited during their cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor in favour of the Prosecution.
21. The P.W.10/Sri.Narasimhamurthy, the Police Constable has deposed that while producing the said Lorry along with copper plates he submitted Ex.P.12/Report.
22. The P.W.12 has further deposed that he seized M.0.1 to 4/Mobile Phones from the possession of Accused 3, 5 and 6 and prepared Ex.P.5/Seizure Panchanama.
23. P.W.3/Sri.Kumar and P.W.4/Sri.Rangaswamy are the attesting witnesses to Ex.P.5. However they have not supported the case of Prosecution. Though they were treated as hostile, nothing is elicited during their cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor in favour of the Prosecution.
24. The P.W.11 has further deposed that on 21.01.2013 along with his team, he arrested Accused No.2 and 7 and submitted Ex.P.15/Report to that effect.
25. The P.W.12 has further deposed that he seized M.O.5 and 6/Mobile Phones from the possession of Accused 2 and 7 and prepared Ex.P.7/Seizure Panchanama.
26. P.W.6/Sri.Ramakrishna and P.W.7/Sri.Lokesh are the attesting witnesses to Ex.P.7. However they have not supported the case of Prosecution. Though they were treated as hostile, nothing is elicited during their cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor in favour of the Prosecution.
27. It is to be noted that all the Mahazar Witnesses have not supported the case of the Prosecution. Further the P.W.8 and 9 have not identified the Accused before the Court. Further they have deposed that the above- mentioned M.O.1 to 6/Mobile Phones are not belonging to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR them. The P.W.8 has deposed that after 15 days of the alleged incidents, the Police took him to the Ramanagara Prison and asked him to identify the persons who robbed him and that he could not identify any one of them.
28. The Committal Court records reveals that the Police took permission of the Court to conduct Test Identification Parade on 30.01.2013. However, there is no evidence about the out come of the said Test Identification Parade. When such being the case, the evidence of P.W.8 cannot be ignored.
29. It is to be noted that the above-mentioned Lorry bearing No.TN-52/4154 was released to its owner Sri.A.Swamy Durai as per the Orders of the Committal Court dated 12.02.2013. The Hero Honda Spender bearing Reg. No.KA-04/HD/5292 was released to its owner Sri.Sikander E Azam, as per the Order of the Committal Court dated 16.03.2013. The above-mentioned copper plates were released to the M/s Sterlite Industries Limited as per the Orders of the Committal Court dated 20.03.2013.
30. From the above-mentioned evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, the Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 395, 412, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The P.W.8 and 9 have also not identified the Accused.
31. However the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that since the above-mentioned Lorry, Hero Honda Splender and copper plates were seized from the possession of Accused and some of the Accused were arrested at the time of said seizure and they have not claimed the said vehicle and copper plates and hence as per Illustration(a) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, a presumption is to be raised and hence they are liable to be convicted. He has further argued that though the alleged penal provisions are not taken as proved, the Court can convict them for any other offences, without framing further charge and in support of the said arguments he has relied on the decisions reported in (2010) 6 - S.C.C. - 673 (Balraje @ Trimbak vs. State of Maharastra), 2016 (6) - S.C.C. 105 (Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha vs. State of Haryana), -9- NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR and A.I.R. - 2016 - S.C. - 796 (Bharamappa Gogi vs. Praveen Murthy and others).
32. However, I cannot accept the said arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor, since the Prosecution has not charged the Accused under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. When such being the case, as per the ratio of the decision reported in 2021 - S.C.C. - Online (S.C.) - 1279 (Ram Ratan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) the Accused cannot be held that they had committed the said offences.
33. In view of the above discussions, the Prosecution has not proved the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 395, 412 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code beyond the shadow of doubts. Hence I answer this Point in the Negative.
34. POINT NO. 2:- I am of the considered view that the above-mentioned discrepancies occurring in the case of the Prosecution are fatal for the Prosecution, thereby throwing a shadow of doubt on the Prosecution story and shatter its veracity Hence, the Prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence. The role of the accused as the culprit in the Prosecution story has not been proved.
35. The Prosecution has to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubt on its own strengths and cannot take advantage of the weakness, if any, of the defence. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty. It cannot be ignored that the greater the crime, the stronger is the proof required. The Prosecution has failed to establish any circumstance, which could point a finger of doubt towards the present accused and their role in the commission of the alleged offence. If there are two views coming forth in the Prosecution case, the one, which is favourable to the accused, is required to be taken.
36. Therefore, I hereby hold that the Prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused beyond the above-mentioned reasonable doubts and hence, benefit of the said doubts is being given to the accused.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR
37. The conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the Prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against the present accused and hence are hereby given the benefit of the above-mentioned reasonable doubts. Therefore I answer this Point in Affirmative.
38. POINT NO. 3:- In view of my above discussions, observations and findings and for the same reasons, I am of the opinion that the Prosecution has not removed the above mentioned Reasonable doubts existing in this case. Hence, I answer this Point in Negative."
A perusal at the afore-quoted reasons of the concerned Court to acquit accused Nos.1 and 5 to 7 would become applicable to the petitioner and the very same findings would enure to the benefit of the petitioner as well. This Court in the normal circumstance, would take a different view and would have directed the petitioner to face trial and get acquitted in a full blown trial like other accused, who are acquitted after a full blown trial. In the case at hand, it cannot be said that the evidence lead in against accused Nos.1 and 5 to 7, who are all acquitted of the offences, would lead to conviction of the petitioner, who is accused No.4. The petitioner though has escaped trial and was not available at the relevant point in time, permitting further trial against this petitioner in C.C.No.113/2022, who would eventually get acquitted of the offences on the same reasons rendered by the concerned
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR Sessions Court. The reasons so rendered by the concerned Court to acquit accused Nos.1 and 5 to 7 is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner as the petitioner is alleged of identical offences and permitting further proceedings to continue against this petitioner on the split charge sheet would become a waste of judicial time.
8. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment of this Court dated 02.09.2022 passed in Crl.P.No.7720/2022, which reads as follows:
"4. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 01.12.2021, acquits accused Nos.1 to 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 21 in S.C.No.103/2018. At the relevant point in time, when the trial was on, the petitioner was not available for trial, as he was allegedly absconding and a split charge sheet was issued against the petitioner in S.C.No.87/2019 in terms of an order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 10.06.2019. The continuation of proceedings in S.C.No.87/2019 is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. Learned counsel, Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioner would contend that the allegations are the ones punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 427, 395, 149 of the IPC. The said allegation is necessarily to be common against all the accused and it is infact common against all the accused. The acquittal order passed by the concerned Court is on the basis of the complainant himself turning hostile. In the teeth of the fact that the complainant himself turned hostile, the Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be the same order as is
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR passed by the concerned Court acquitting the aforesaid accused.
6. Learned HCGP would however refute the submission to contend that the petitioner would escape trial, should necessarily face trial and considered for acquittal by the concerned Court and this Court should not interfere at this juncture, as a person, who has escaped trial should not be shown any indulgence under section 482 of Cr.P.C .
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The allegation against the petitioner are the ones punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 427, 395, 149 of the IPC. The allegation was against 22 accused and the offences alleged were common, the allegations are also common. The concerned Court, by its order dated 01.12.2021, acquits accused Nos.1, to 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 21 by rendering the following reason:
REASONS
9. Poin"t No.1 to 5: The P.W.1 has stated that on 15.09.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. when P.W.4 was insider the Bar, somebody picked up quarrel with him and those persons damaged the Bar and hence, he sustained injuries. He has also stated that, the P.W.2 also sustained injuries in the incident and both of them taken treatment in the Wenlock hospital. The P.W.2, P.W.4 and Babanna sustained injuries and therefore, he filed the first information before the Police. He has deposed that the police came to the Bar and drawn the panchanama in Ex.P.2. The P.W.2 has deposed that when he was in the Bar of P.W.1 many people assembled and one of them thrown stone towards him and therefore, himself and P.W.4 sustained injuries and took treatment in the hospital.
10. P.W.3 has deposed that on 15.09.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. the P.W.4 was inside the Bar, about 25 persons came to the Bar and there was quarrel between P.W.4 and those 25 persons. He has deposed that such 25 persons damaged the Bar
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR and he took treatment in Wenlock hospital for the injuries sustained in the incident. The P.W.1 to 3 have not stated the name of any of the accused of this case and even not identified the accused. The prosecution treated these witnesses hostile and cross examined. The P.W.1 to 3 have totally denied the allegation that the accused of this case have quarrelled with P.W.4, assaulted P.W.7 to 7, damaged the Bar and committed dacoity of Rs.2,000/- from the Bar.
11. The P.W.4 to 7 have totally denied the incident itself. The P.W.8 and P.W.9 have deposed that they have not witnesses the incident. The P.W.4 to 9 have been cross examined by the prosecution and even in the cross-examination the P.W.4 to 9 denied the allegation made by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence against the accused that they have formed unlawful assembly, committed criminal trespass in the Bar of P.W.1, voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 to 7 and committed dacoity of Rs.2,000/- from the Bar of P.W.1. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted for the offences alleged against them because of insufficient evidence. Accordingly, I answer these points in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure the accused No.1 to 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 21 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 395, 427 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.
Their bal bond stands cancelled.
Office is directed to retain the material objects as they are required in split up cases."
9. The reason for acquitting the other accused as afore-quoted is the fact that the complainant himself had turned hostile and other witnesses had not supported the charge sheet. If the complainant had turned hostile and it resulting in acquittal of the aforesaid accused, it cannot but be said that the same would be applicable to the petitioner as
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR well, notwithstanding the fact that he was not available for trial. It is not the case of sending the petitioner for trial for the very same offences and result being the same as is ordered on 01.12.2021 in S.C.No.103/2018. It would be an exercise in futility to permit further trial, which would be of no utility and be a waste of judicial time.
10. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.4796/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench considering identical set of facts has held as follows:
"12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that petitioner/accused was never traced and non- bailable warrant issued against him was never executed. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268 has held quashing of charge and order discharging co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations and if said judgment had reached finality. It is also held that discharge of a co-accused by the High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case, is just and proper. In another ruling in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551 this Court has held as under:
"The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against other available accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR charge sheet.... In the instant case also, the full pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed."
13. Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect:
"As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer pending nor he can close the case as he has to await appearance of the accused or the production by the State, for passing orders regarding undergoing sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. As the entire material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as he is extended for his co-
accused. Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt."
14. In this background, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that not only complainant but also other
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR witnesses including the inmates of ambulance in which they were travelling on the date of incident, had turned hostile in the proceedings which was continued against co-accused. Though, P.W.1 - complainant had admitted that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1 and had also admitted that he has given a statement identifying the accused before the Investigation Officer, he did not identify the accused persons present before Court. In fact, statements given by him as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 when confronted, he denied the same and had also denied the suggestion put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2 to P.W.8 had not identified the accused persons present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In fact, they have not even identified the statements made by them before the Investigating Officer and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross- examination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, taking into consideration said evidence available on record Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution would not come to their assistance. In fact, witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P-40, who were examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have also turned hostile and they have stated that police had called them a year back to the police station and when they went to the police station, they had not seen any accused persons in police station. However, they admit police having taken their signatures on the papers and contents of it were not known to them.
15. It is in this background, trial Court on appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the accused persons by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients of provisions of the offence alleged against them.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR In fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to please on community of people, the Investigating Officer might have falsely implicated the accused persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be received from the public or other community people and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in the present petition is examined, it can be noticed that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner is similar, identical and in fact, it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33, who15 were tried in S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had been acquitted.
16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that judgment rendered by trial Court insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is similar and identical to the charge made against the present petitioner. This Court does not find any independent or separate material having been placed by the prosecution against present petitioner to put him on trial once again and directing the petitioner-accused to undergo the order of trial, which ultimately would fetch same result as that of accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33. When allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made against present petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that they are identical, similar and inseparable in nature and no independent decision can be taken against the present petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be served even if the present petitioner is ordered to be tried by the trial Court.
17. In view of the afore stated facts and the law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would emerge that there would be no harm or injustice that would be caused to prosecution if
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR benefit of acquittal order is passed in favour of accused - petitioner, since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 against whom similar allegation had been made is already acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State that petitioner should not be extended said benefit, since he is an absconder, by relying upon judgment of Coordinate Bench this Court is not inclined to accept said contention for single reason that said judgment had been rendered based on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 where under Apex Court after noticing the facts obtained in the said case, had held that benefit of acquittal, should be extended to the appellant, since co-accused had been acquitted and held that a departure can be made in cases where accused has not surrendered "after conviction" in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. As such, noticing earlier position of law laid down it was held by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal of a accused for same offence on same set of facts and on similar accusations, if considered, it would entile for acquittal of co-accused also.
18. In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, in Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar petitioner is concerned.
In view of criminal petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:34263 WP No. 4586 of 2023 HC-KAR does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected."
The Co-ordinate Bench was considering a case where the co-accused who had escaped trial had not surrendered or was not arrested by the police.
In the light of there being no evidence against any of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioner being tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would become an exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no evidence or a specific charge against this petitioner, that was not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner."
In that light, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.113/2022, pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Ramanagara, qua the petitioner, stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23