Karnataka High Court
Shakeel Ahammada vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION No.709 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHAKEEL AHAMMADA
S/O B S MAHAMMAD ALI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/AT NO.D.NO.GL-92, 9TH BLOCK
KATIPALLA VILLAGE
MANGALURU TALUK
D K DISTRICT - 575 219.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
SURATHKAL POLICE STATION,
D K DISTRICT, REP BY THE S.P.P,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI S RACHAIAH, HCGP]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION
482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.261/2017 (CRIME NO.172/2015)
OF SURATHKAL POLICE STATION, MANGALURU D.K. ON
2
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND C.J.M, MANAGLURU, D.K. WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 in Criminal Case No.420/2016 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, D.K., has filed this petition seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.261/2017 filed against him on the basis of the split up chargesheet (arising out of the Crime No.172/2015) by Surathkal Police, which is pending on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, D.K.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The records disclose that a criminal case has been lodged by the respondent-Police i.e. Surathkal Police, Mangaluru, originally against four accused persons in C.C.No.420/2016. Out of four accused, case 3 against accused No.1, the present petitioner was split up and a separate case was registered against him in C.C.No.260/2017. However, accused Nos. 2 to 4 were tried in the said case and by judgment dated 11th October 2017, accused Nos. 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges levelled against them for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 341, 323, 325, 354 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the allegations made against all the accused persons 1 to 4 in the said case are similar and are inseparable and indivisible in nature. Therefore, the benefit of judgment of acquittal shall also be extended to the present petitioner.
5. In this regard, in my opinion, it is worth to note here a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh, wherein, it was held that: 4
"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."
6. In another decision reported in 2002(1) KCCR 1 in the case of Muneer Ahmed Qureshi, Muneer @ Gaun Muneer Vs. State of Karnataka by Kumarswamy Layout Police, wherein 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 other material other than what is already produced and 5 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."
7. In view of the above said decisions, it is crystal clear that if the allegations against the accused persons and co- accused who were tried and acquitted by the Court are one and the same and they are not separable in nature and the prosecution has already led evidence in one of the case and the said evidence projected by the prosecution was also in respect of the absconding accused and there is no separate or better evidence that can be produced by the prosecution, in such an event, the Court can quash said proceeding against the accused who was not available for the trial. 6
8. In this background, it is worth to refer the factual matrix of this case in C.C.No.420/2016. In the chargesheet, the allegations made against the accused persons are as follows:
It is the case of the prosecution that on 21.9.2015 at about 9.15 hours, accused Nos. 1 to 4 with common intention to commit an offence against the complainant by name one Rafeeq, when the complainant was moving on his scooter bearing Registration No.KA.19.EM.1463 in front of site No.167, situated at Block No.9, Katipalla village, Mangaluru Taluk, it is alleged that all the accused persons 1 to 4 have abused CW1 and quarrelled with each other and in fact, the accused persons have wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him with their hands and also tried to outrage the modesty of PWs 1 and 2. On the aforesaid allegations, the charge sheet has been filed.
10. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused 2 to 4 examined 5 witnesses as PWs 1 to 5 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. Ultimately, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Court has recorded its finding that the prosecution has not placed sufficient material to arrive at a conclusion as to the guilt of the accused and therefore, the Court has acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 4.
Therefore, when the Trial Court has meticulously examined the evidence available on record and recorded the finding of acquittal against the accused and when particularly, the State has not chosen to prefer any appeal against the said judgment of acquittal in C.C.No.420/2016, in my opinion, the benefit of said acquittal order is equally be extended to the accused persons who are split up from the case and consequently, all proceedings deserves to be quashed. Otherwise, continuation of proceeding against the accused amounts to abuse of process of Court and it would also loss of valuable time of the Court. Hence, I pass the following:
8
ORDER Petition is allowed. Consequently, the case in C.C.No.260/2017 (arising out of Crime No.172/2015) pending on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, D.K. and all further proceedings therein are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*