Mohammed Sharief @ Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2020

[Cites 7, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Mohammed Sharief @ Khasim vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2020

Bench: Suraj Govindaraj

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1422 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED SHARIEF @ KHASIM
S/O H.B. HYDROSE BEARY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT: MAINADALA HOUSE
NAVOORU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 211.
                                           ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI LETHIF.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION
       REP. BY THE S.P.P
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     ABDUL HAMEED
       S/O LATE: HAMMABBA
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
       SURA HOUSE, NAVOOORU VILLAGE
       BANTWAL TALUK
       D.K DISTRICT - 575 211
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VINAYAKA.V.S., HCGP FOR R1,
  R2 - SERVED)
                          -----
                                                     Crl.P.No.1422/2019
                                   2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS       AGAINST       THE     PETITIONER    IN
C.C.NO.904/2012    (CR.NO.218/2008)     BANTWAL    RURAL
POLICE STATION, D.K., ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BANTWAL, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/W 149 of IPC.

    THIS    CRIMINAL   PETITION  COMING    ON   FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

1. The petitioner who is accused No.6 in C.C.No.904/2012 arising out of Crime No.218/2008 registered by the Buntwal Rural Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings against him.

2. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 31.08.2018 alleging that at about 10.p.m., there was a quarrel with regard to hearing of a cassette of Salafi Group. Due to which FIR was registered in Crime No.218/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/w 149 of IPC against 6 accused. Thereafter, a charge sheet was laid against these accused in C.C.No.335/2009, the petitioner was arrayed as accused Crl.P.No.1422/2019 3 No.6 in the said charge sheet. However, on account of the petitioner-accused No.6 absconding, the charge sheet was split up and the proceedings continued against accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.335/2009. After conduct of trial, the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Buntwal, D.K, Mangalore acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5 holding that the testimony of PW.1 was uncorroborated and that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed offences alleged against them.

3. Subsequent to the acquittal of the said accused Nos.1 to 5, the petitioner is before this Court contending that since accused Nos.1 to 5 have been acquitted after due trial, the petitioner is also required to be treated on parity and benefit thereof and the proceedings insofar as C.C.No.904/2012 is required to be quashed.

4. Sri Lethif B learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 5 after complete trial on merits, the said order of acquittal has Crl.P.No.1422/2019 4 not been challenged by the State by way of filing an appeal. Hence, no purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to another trial which would more than likely result in acquittal. On these grounds and relying on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Tajoddin @ Taju Ansari vs. State in Crl.P.No.201137/2018, Ravi @ Ravichandra P vs. State in Crl.P.No.4796/2017 and Shakeel Ahammada vs State in W.P.No.709/2018 he would submit that on the ground of parity, the proceedings against petitioner-accused No.6 has to be quashed.

5. Per contra, Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-State would submit that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the petitioner having absconding and seek for acquittal on the ground of parity. The petitioner is therefore, required to stand trial.

Crl.P.No.1422/2019

6. Heard Sri Lethif B learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinayaka V.S. learned HCGP for respondent No.1- State and perused the records.

7. In view of the decisions relied upon by Sri Lethif B, detailed hereinabove, it is seen that even an absconding accused can take benefit of the acquittal of other accused after trial. Once there is an acquittal on merits after consideration of the evidence on record and the said evidence being equally applicable to the petitioner- accused No.6, I am of the considered opinion that the same would also result in acquittal, as the very same offences are alleged against the petitioner and it is the very same material object which should be considered in evidence, there being no other changed circumstances as also the State having not filed any appeal against the order of acquittal, the benefit of acquittal against accused Nos.1 to 5 is also to be given to accused No.6.

8. In view thereof, the petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.904/2012 arising out of Crime No.218/2008 Crl.P.No.1422/2019 6 registered with Buntwal Rural Police Station, Dakshina Kannada pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Buntwal is hereby quashed insofar as petitioner- accused No.6 is concerned.

Petition is allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE nms

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court