Karnataka High Court
K M Abdul Majid @ Majid vs The State Of Karnataka By on 23 September, 2019
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
CRL.P. NO.7354/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7354 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. K.M. ABDUL MAJID
@ MAJID
S/O K.M. MOHAMMAD MUSLIYAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O KAROPAADI HOUSE
KAROPADI VILLAGE AND POST
BANTWAL TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 279
2. T. MOHAMMAD SHARIF
@ SHARIF
S/O IBRAHIM BYARI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O DAKKARISTU HOUSE
KAROPADI VILLAGE AND POST
BANTWAL TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 279 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. POOJA KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR
SHRI. DINESHKUMAR K. RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
VITTAL POLICE STATION
VITTAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT-574 243
(REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001)
2. MOHAMMED ANWAR
S/O HAJI A. USMAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
2
CRL.P. NO.7354/2018
OCC:BUSINESS
R/O ARASALIKEY HOUSE
KAROPADI VILLAGE AND POST
BANTWAL TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 279 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 IN C.C.NO.192/2017, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BANTWAL, D.K.,
(CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss 143, 147, 148, 447, 427,
323, 324, 326 & 506 R/W 149 OF IPC IN CRIME NO.83/2010 OF VITTAL
POLICE STATION, D.K.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
After investigating into FIR No.83/2010, police have filed charge sheet against 9 accused in C.C.No.473/2011 before Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwala, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 427, 447 & 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, in which petitioners have been described as accused No.2 and 3. Petitioners and accused No.5 did not appear before the Trial Court. Hence, a split up charge sheet was filed against them in C.C.No.865/2012. In respect of accused No.7, 8 & 9 also a 3 CRL.P. NO.7354/2018 split up charge sheet was field in C.C.No.1148/2016. After full fledged trial, learned Trial Judge has acquitted accused No.1, 4 & 6 in C.C.No.473/2011 by judgment and order dated 18.08.2016.
2. Petitioners did not appear in C.C No.865/2012 also. Hence, another split up charge sheet in C.C No.192/2017 has been filed against them.
3. Petitioners, who are accused No.2 and 3 in the original proceedings have filed this petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings against them pursuant to registration of a split up charge sheet on the ground of parity.
4. Smt.Pooja Kattimani, learned advocate for petitioners, adverting to paragraphs No.21 & 22 of the judgment, submitted that learned Trial Judge has recorded that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, subjecting petitioners to a fresh trial amounts to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, she prayed for allowing this petition.
4CRL.P. NO.7354/2018
5. Shri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP, in his usual fairness, did not dispute the facts of the case.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
7. In C.C.No.473/2011, prosecution examined 16 witnesses, got marked Exhibits P1-P11(a) and produced 6 material objects. In paragraph No.22 of judgment in C.C.No.473/2011 in which petitioners were originally arrayed as accused No.2 & 3, learned Trial Judge, on consideration of material on record, has recorded that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. In C.C.No.865/2012, in which accused No.5 was tried, learned Trial Judge, in paragraph No.12 of order dated 18.03.2017, has recorded that prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted accused No.5 in the original proceedings.
9. This Court has taken a consistent view that when co-accused has been acquitted, no useful purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings against 5 CRL.P. NO.7354/2018 remaining accused. [See, Ashraf K.S. Vs. The State (Crl.P.No.3809/2017 decided on 12.06.2018)].
10. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and accordingly it is allowed. All proceedings in C.C.No.192/2017 pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwala, Dakshina Kannada, are quashed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE AV