Karnataka High Court
Mukkateera Sampath @ M.G. Kushalappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 May, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MAY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1984 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Mukkateera Sampath @
M.G.Kushalappa,
Son of Ramu @ M.K.Gangapathy,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at Nalavathoklu Village,
Virajpet Taluk,
Kodagu District,
PIN: 571 201,
Now residing at No.21, 4th Cross,
Ajjappa Block,
Bengalulru - 560 032.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri R.K.Mahadeva, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by Station House Officer,
Virajpet Town Police Station,
Virajpet, Kodagu District,
2
PIN: 571 201.
2. E.V.Mohedin,
Son of M.V.Ismail,
Aged about 45 years,
Darshan Store Main Road,
Virajpet Town,
Kodagu District PIN: 571 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri B. Visweshwaraiah, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1)
*****
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.544/2005 (arising out of the Crime
No.264/1997) of Virajpet Town Police Station, Virajpet for the
alleged offences under Sections 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 427,
152, 153, 109 read with 149 of IPC and now the case is pending
before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Virajpet.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3
2. It transpires that the petitioner was arraigned as accused no.3 along with several others for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 146,147, 148, 427,152,153, 109 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Virajpet in a case in CC 1143/2004. It transpires that the present petitioner was absconding and the case was split up against the present petitioner. The trial court having proceeded against other accused, they have been acquitted. The petitioner thereafter having been apprehended and brought to trial, it is at that stage, that the present petition is filed.
3. It is laid down in more than one decision of this court that in circumstances where the prosecution is not in a position to sustain the case against some of the accused and if on the same material evidence, the case is sought to be proved against other accused, who may be brought to trial at a later 4 point of time, no useful purpose would be served as it cannot meet the same end.
4. The learned Government Pleader would not dispute the position of law and would also state that the State is not in a position to improve its case insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the fate of the trial is foreclosed. Consequently, no useful purpose would be served in the proceedings being taken to its logical conclusion before the court below.
The petition is allowed and the proceedings pending against the petitioner stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv