Karnataka High Court
Siddaram vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:776
CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201721 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SIDDARAM S/O CHANDRAKANTH NANDARGI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAMANAHALLI, TQ. ALMEL, PRESENTLY
R/O. H. NO.109, REVANASIDDESHWARA NAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA ROAD, SHOLAPUR-413 001.
(MAHARASHTRA STATE) (AS PER CHARGE SHEET).
2. SHARANABASU S/O MAHADEVAPPA NANDARGI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. RAMANAHALLI, TQ. ALMEL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
(AS PER CHARGE SHEET).
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed (BY SRI. SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA AND:
UDAGI
Location: HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
COURT OF ALMEL POLICE STATION, SINDAGI CIRCLE,
KARNATAKA DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101. R/BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
2. GALIB S/O KANTAPPA VIBHUTIHALLI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ALMEL, DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
(DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:776
CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS-
2023, PRAYING TO A) QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 IN SPL. (SC/ST)
NO.67/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSION AND SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA, DISTRICT
VIJAYAPURA ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.2/2024 REGISTERED
BY ALMEL POLICE STATION DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 307, 504, 302, 202, 212 OF
IPC AND U/SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST PA ACT 1989, ON ITS FILE.
B) PASS ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS
DEEM FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in Spl.(SC/ST) No.67/2024 (arising out of Crime No.2/2024), registered by the Almel Police, for the offences punishable under sections 307, 504, 302, 202, 212 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:776 CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025 HC-KAR (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for brevity, "SC/ST (POA) Act"), pending on the file of II Additional District and Session and Special Judge, Vijayapur.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 05.01.2024 at about 04.30 p.m., when respondent No.2 and his father (now deceased in this case) were proceeding in a motor cycle from their agricultural land towards Almel and when they reached near Karnataka Bank in Almel City, some unknown accused person was proceeding towards them in a wrong direction. The same was questioned by the respondent No.2, at that time, he informed that, a tractor is parked on the right side of the said road, hence, he is proceeding in the wrong direction. During such altercation, the said person assaulted respondent No.2 on his cheek and abused him in filthy language. The same was questioned by the father of respondent No.2. At that time, the said person took out a knife which was beneath the seat of the motorcycle and stabbed into the stomach of respondent No.2's father. When respondent No.2 made an attempt to rescue his father, the said person also tried to assault him. After inflicting such injury, the public gathered there and questioned the person who stabbed -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:776 CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent No.2's father and at that time, it was revealed that his name was Ajith son of Anand Nandargi and he was a fruit vendor. Later, respondent No.2 and his father was admitted in the hospital and lodged the complaint against the said Ajith i.e., accused No.1 on 05.01.2024. During the course of treatment, respondent No.2's father succumbed to the injuries on 06.01.2024.
3. On the strength of complaint, the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.2/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 323, 326, 307 and 504 of IPC. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, respondent No.1-Police arrested the accused No.1 on 22.08.2024. During the course of his investigation, in his voluntary statement he revealed that, after the incident, he escaped and went to Andhra Pradesh and thereafter, to Maharashtra and petitioner No.1 i.e. accused No.2 is brother of accused No.1 and Petitioner No.2 i.e. accused No.3 being his relative, extended monetary help to him to escape from the clutches of Police and accused No.3 has given shelter to accused No.1. As such, respondent No.1-Police implicated these petitioners in the crime for the offence punishable under Sections 202 and 212 of IPC. After -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:776 CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025 HC-KAR completing the investigation, respondent-Police laid charge sheet against accused No.1 and these petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 302, 201 and 212 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of offences. Hence, the petitioners filed this petition to quash the proceedings against them.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2 has not appeared before this Court.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that, admittedly, the incident was caused on 05.01.2024 between the respondent No.2, his deceased father and accused No.1. Respondent No.2 is an eye witness to the incident and according to him, the accused No.1 picked up a quarrel with him and his father and due to the altercation, he took out a knife from his motorcycle and stabbed on the abdomen of the deceased i.e., the father of respondent No.2. As a result, his father sustained severe -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:776 CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025 HC-KAR bleeding injuries and subsequently, succumbed to the injuries. Admittedly, these petitioners were neither in the scene of occurrence nor participated in the incident directly or indirectly. The allegation against these petitioners is that accused No.1 while absconding, he took shelter with the help of accused No.3 and accused No.2 extended monetary help to him at Maharashtra. But, the charge sheet material does not disclose that accused No.2 extended monetary benefit and accused No.3 given shelter to him knowing fully that accused No.1 involved in the commission of the alleged crime. In such circumstances, except the voluntary statement of accused No.1, absolutely no other piece of evidence/materials available on record to implicate these petitioners in the alleged crime. By relying on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Bishop Thomas Aquinas Vs. State of Kerala, he contented that, in order to invoke Section 202 and 212 of IPC, a separate case has to be registered and it has to be investigated separately and based on the voluntary statement, the other accused cannot be implicated in the main case and charge sheet cannot be laid against them. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:776 CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Per contra, the learned HCGP opposed the prayer by contending that that the charge sheet materials disclose that accused No.2 extended the monetary help to accused No.1 and accused No.3 provided shelter to accused No.1 in a thin shed at Mumbai to escape from the clutches of the Police by knowing fully that accused No.1 committed the heinous offence under Section 302 of IPC. In such circumstances, the proceedings cannot be quashed against these petitioners. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents made available on record.
8. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that the incident was caused on 05.01.2024 at about 04.30 p.m., when the deceased and respondent No.2 were traveling in their motorcycle near Karnataka Bank in Almel city. According to respondent No.2, accused No.1 came from the wrong direction in a motorcycle and there was a verbal altercation between them which turned into a quarrel between respondent No.2, his father and the accused No.1. Thereby, -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:776 CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025 HC-KAR the accused No.1 took out a knife from his motorbike and stabbed the deceased i.e., father of respondent No.2. Thereafter, his father was shifted to hospital and he succumbed to the injuries. Ever since then, accused No.1 was absconded and after a lapse of 8 months, on 22.08.2024, he was arrested by the respondent-Police. Thereafter, his voluntary statement was recorded.
9. It is the allegation in the charge sheet that, during the course of investigation, accused No.1 volunteered before the Police that, accused No.2 being his brother and accused No.3 being his relative, given shelter and extended monetary help to accused No.1 to abscond from the case. On perusal of the entire charge sheet materials, as rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioners, except the voluntary statement of accused No.1, absolutely no other piece of evidence available on record to implicate the petitioners in the crime. The statement of other witnesses also does not disclose the involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3 in the crime in any respect. Even otherwise, it is not the case of respondent-police that accused Nos.2 and 3 are given shelter or monitory help, by knowing fully this accused No.1 was involved in the heinous -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:776 CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025 HC-KAR crime. There are no such attempts made by the Police to record the statement of any material witnesses to that effect.
10. It is settled position of law that based on the statement of a co-accused, no person can be implicated in the crime as an accused. It is also equally settled position of law that, in order to invoke Section 202 or 212 of IPC, the investigation has to be conducted by police separately after getting permission from the Magistrate, since it is a distinct offence by registering a crime. In the principal offence, the co- accused cannot be implicated under the said provision. In that view of the matter, even if the entire allegation against these petitioners is accepted on its face value also, the allegation made against these petitioners do not make out a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 202 or 212 of IPC. In such circumstances, the continuation of proceedings against these petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of court.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Wajid Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 951 held that, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances not only the FIR or charge
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:776 CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025 HC-KAR sheet allegations, while quashing the proceedings and the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the records of the case over and above the averments and, if needed be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution, need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case, but is empowered to take into account overall circumstances leading to the initiation or registration of the case, as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. In the instant case, as discussed supra, there are no prima facie materials placed by the prosecution to continue the proceedings against these petitioners. Hence, I am of the considered view that, the proceedings against these petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in Spl
(SC/ST) No.67/2024 (Crime No.2/2024)
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:776
CRL.P No. 201721 of 2025
HC-KAR
registered by Almel Police, for the offence punishable under sections 307, 504, 302, 202, 212 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 pending on the file of II Additional District and Session and Special Judge, Vijayapur, is hereby quashed.
However, it is made clear that, the proceedings shall continue against accused No.1.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE THM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20