Karnataka High Court
Thajuddin Ahammed vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5105/2017
BETWEEN :
1. Thajuddin Ahammed
S/o Abdul Khader
Aged about 25 years
R/at: K.P.Nagara House,
Near Masjid, Kinnipadavu
Bajpe Village, Mangaluru Taluk,
D.K. District-574 142.
...Petitioner
(By Sri B. Lethif, Advocate)
AND :
1. State of Karnataka
Rep. by Bajpe Police Station,
D.K. District.
Represented by S.P.P.
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001.
2. Kumari. Deeba
D/o Mohammed Rafiq
Aged about 23 years
R/at Bajpe, Near Tarikambala
-2-
Bajpe Village & Post
Mangaluru Taluk
D.K. District-575 134.
...Respondents
(By Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, SPP-II for R1;
Notice to R2 dispensed with vide order dated 21.7.2017)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C praying to quash the entire proceedings
against the petitioner in S.C.No.23/2016 (Crime
No.216/2012) of Bajpe Police Station, D.K. District, on
the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP for respondent-State.
2. Perused the records. The petitioner is a split up accused No.1 in SC.No.20/2014 disposed of by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, dated 2.9.2016, acquitting accused Nos.2 to 18 in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 504, 354, 395 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
-3-
3. The brief factual matrix of the case that emanates from the records are that, a lady by name Deeba Algani has lodged a complaint stating that on 7.11.2012 at about 8.45 p.m. she was traveling with a person by name Dharmendra in an Innova Car. When the car reached a place called Maravoor Railway Bridge, a person came in a motorbike, intercepted them from moving and in fact assaulted Mr.Dharmendra who was in the said car and pushed him to the back seat. Thereafter another person came there and took the complainant and Dharmendra to Bajpe Old Petrol Bunk and there some more persons also gathered and they also took the complainant and Dharmendra towards Shanthigudde. The persons who gathered at Maravoor Bidge put their hands on the body of the complainant and tried to outrage her modesty and abused Dharmendra in filthy language and thereafter assaulting Dharmendra and the complainant snatched the purse of the complainant and disappeared. -4- In fact the complainant went to the hospital and took treatment and later on she came to know that some of the accused snatched the purse and she lost a sum of Rs.3,07,000/-. Alleging above facts she lodged a complaint before the police. Police after registering a First Information Report, investigated the matter and submitted a charge sheet. As mentioned above, on the basis of the charge sheet and after committal, Sessions Case has been registered against all the accused persons in SC.No.20/2014.
4. The trial Court has tried accused Nos.2 to 18 by framing charges against them for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused has examined as many as 17 witnesses as PWs.1 to 17 and got marked 25 documents as Exs.P1 to P25 and Exs.D1 to D3 during the course of examination of PWs.3 and 4 and also got marked two Material Objects MO.Nos.1 and 2. After appreciating the oral and -5- documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found no sufficient material to convict the accused. As such holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, acquitted accused Nos.2 to 15, 17 and 18.
5. The petitioner claims before this Court that, the allegations made against all the accused are one and the same and they are inseparable and indivisible in nature. Therefore, even if the trial Court proceeds against the petitioner it would serve no purpose and it is sheer waste of judicial time. Therefore, he pleaded for quashing of the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of the split charge sheet.
6. In this case, it is worth to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 268, wherein it is held that:
-6-
"Quashing of charge and discharge of the accused when main 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."
7. In another decision reported in 2002(1) KCCR 1 in the case of Muneer Ahmed Qureshi, Muneer @ Gaun Muneer Vs. State of Karnataka by Kumaraswamy Layout Police, 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 -7- there cannot be any other material other than what is 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."
8. In view of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, it is clear that if the allegations against all the accused persons are inseparable and indivisible and that if any of the accused persons have already been acquitted, benefit of judgment of acquittal can be extended to the absconding accused also.
9. As I have also narrated the factual aspects of this case and the consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the -8- trial Court has acquitted some of the accused persons. Even on careful perusal of the points for consideration framed by the trial Court, the trial Court has considered the factual aspects of the entire case including the absconding accused persons. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons to differ from the opinion of the trial Court in so far as the absconding accused persons are concerned. I am of the opinion that the judgment of acquittal rendered in so far as co-accused are concerned is beneficial to the petitioner. Hence, the proceedings as against the petitioner on the same allegations are liable to be quashed as if they are allowed to proceed, the same would amount to abuse of process of Court. Hence, the following order is made:-
Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in SC.No.23/2016 (arising out of Crime No.216/2012, Bajpe Police Station) pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, -9- Mangaluru and all further proceedings thereon are hereby quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-