Karnataka High Court
T Muttu Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2014
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H.N.Nagamohan Das
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7587/2013
BETWEEN:
T. Muttu Kumar
S/o Late Tangavel,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o No.33/8, Kamarajanagar,
T.B. Road, Valliyur,
Thirunalveli District,
Tamilnadu State,
Pin Code : 627 119. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G. SURESH, ADV.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Banasawadi P.S.,
Banaswadi,
Bangalore City,
Pin Code : 560 033. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.J. ESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN C.C.
NO.24564/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL.
2
C.M.M., BANGALORE CITY, ARISING OUT OF CR.
NO.120/2009 OF BANASAWADI P.S., BANGALORE
CITY, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET HIM AT
LIBERTY, AS THERE ARE NO SUFFICIENT GROUNDS
FOR PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused No.1 in Crime No. 120/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394 r/w 34 of IPC. The investigation is completed and charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 177, 182 r/w 34 of IPC. Since the petitioner was absconding the Sessions Judge proceeded against accused No.2 to 4 in S.C. No. 130/2010 and the same ended in acquittal vide Judgment dated 27th August 2012.
2. Now, the prosecution has filed a split charge sheet against accused No.1/petitioner in C.C. No.24564/2009 and re-numbered as 24222/2010. Aggrieved by the initiation of charge sheet against the petitioner, the 3 petitioner is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that he is entitled for the benefit of judgment of acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 4. During the pendency of this proceedings, the petitioner surrendered before the jurisdictional Magistrate and he is now in Judicial Custody.
3. The prosecution relied on some evidence before the Sessions Judge in S.C. No.130/2010 and the same was assessed, appreciated and evaluated by the Sessions Judge resulting in acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 4. Now, the prosecution is relying on the very same set of evidence against the petitioner/accused No.1.
4. Perusal of the charge sheet specifies that the main allegations are against accused Nos.2 to 4. What is alleged against the petitioner is conspiracy in committing the offence. In an identical circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Rajak Vs. 4 State of West Bengal reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 has stated that:
"A departure may be made in cases where the accused had not surrendered after the conviction in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. But as in the present case, after surrender, the benefit of acquittal in the case of co-accused on similar accusations can be extended".
5. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled for benefit of acquittal passed against accused Nos.2 to 4.
6. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 24564/2009 renumbered as C.C.No.24222/2010 on the file of the XI Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore City are hereby quashed. Immediately the petitioner shall be released.
Sd/-
JUDGE RBV/ Corrected vide order on being Spoken to dt.10.01.2014