Karnataka High Court
Udaya Kumar Shetty vs State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2017
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K. N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO. 8956/2016
BETWEEN
UDAYA KUMAR SHETTY,
S/O. ANANDA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT SRI RAMA SADANA,
SWAMILA PADAVU,
BAJPE POST AND VILLAGE,
MANGALORE TALUK 575001 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MANGALURU EAST POLICE STATION,
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU 560009 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2613/2014
(CR.NO.110/2009) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC (II
COURT) AT MANGALURU, REGISTERED BY THE
MANGALURU EAST POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER U/S
448, 465, 420, 424 R/W 34 OF IPC
2
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG
WITH IA NO.1/2016 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.4 in C.C. No. 608/2011 on the file of JMFC -II Court) at Mangaluru. In the said case, this petitioner was split up and the said case was proceeded against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and they were acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 16.03.2016.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made against this petitioner (A4) and Accused Nos. 1 to 3, who were acquitted by the trial Court are one and the same and they are inseparable in nature. Therefore, the benefit of judgment of acquittal also be extended to the petitioner.
3
4. Learned HCGP submits that, no appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment by the trial Court in C.C. No.608/2011.
5. In this background, it is worth to refer to an unreported the decision of this court 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. 4
1822 [THE STATE 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 other material other than what is 5 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."
6. In this background, if the above said decisions are seen, the court has to draw an inference that the allegations against the accused persons are one and the same and they are inseparable in nature, and no useful purpose would be served if the petitioner/accused is again put on to the trial and it is sheer waste of judicious time. Therefore, in such an eventuality, the court can extend the same benefit of acquittal rendered by the trial Court against the other co-accused.
7. The factual aspects of this particular case is that a person by name K. Srinivasa Gowda (CW.1) has lodged the complaint stating that he is the owner of Excellent Coaching Class, situated 3rd Floor of 6 Amrithotsava Building near Bunts Hostel, Mangaluru, on 5.5.2009 at 7.30 am., during his absence, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 with a common intention of committing offence, among them, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 criminally trespassed into the office premises and showed a document to CW.2, the office staff of the complainant and thereafter, accused claimed that the movables in the office premises are belonged to them and there are documents with them to the said effect and thereafter, dishonestly removed the furniture, Xerox machine, computers, Laptop, Generator, Inverter etc. and concealed the same in the house belonged to CW.5 at Cutinha Compound, Marnamikatte, Kudupadi road, in Mangaluru City. It is also alleged that Accused No.1 had executed an agreement in favour of CW.1 dated 20.03.2009 with regard to Excellent Coaching Class of CW.1 and also in respect of the particulars of cheques towards security of the above said loan on 18.03.2009 in the presence of Accused No.4, who is the witness to the said document. It is alleged that the said document is a forged document and Accused No.1 altered the date as '20' and kept in his possession and there by 7 Accused Nos. 1 to 4 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 465, 420, 424 r/w. 34 of IPC.
8. The trial Court on the basis of the above allegations, framed charges against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and tried them. The prosecution examined two witnesses viz., PWs. 1 & 2 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. CW.1 himself did not appear before the trial Court to contest the proceedings. Therefore, the trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused persons on the ground that there are no sufficient materials to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
9. Looking to the above said allegations made and also the charges leveled against Accused Nos. 1 to 3 by the trial Court and the factual aspects are similar and the allegations are intertwined and they are inseparable in nature. Therefore, in my opinion, the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 is beneficial to the present petitioner and the same benefit 8 has to be extended to the present petitioner also. Therefore, the split up case registered against him is liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C. No.2613/2014, (Crime No.110/2009), pending on the file of JMFC-II, Mangaluru, registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 465, 420, 424 r/w.34 IPC, are hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2016 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*