Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ajay vs State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:5479
CRL.P No. 556 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 556 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI AJAY
S/O M.SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO.444
INDIRA CANTEEN NEAR
JANATHA COLONY, DHODAKALLARAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 035.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LALITH KUMAR R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BY SHO, MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY
HCGP, REPRESENTED BY SPP
ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI CHANDRA
S/O NARSAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 52
DEVARABEESANHALLI
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:5479
CRL.P No. 556 of 2026
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET SC NO.2032/2024 (SPLIT UP) (CR
NO.166/2020) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 324, 504, 506,
307 R/W 149 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
POLICE AND THE SAME IS PENDING FILE OF THE BEFORE XXVI
ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner - accused No.3 is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.2032/2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 r/w. 149 of the IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Lalith Kumar R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.166/2020 for the afore-quoted offences. The police conduct -3- NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR investigation and file a charge sheet in C.C.No.54626/2020.
Later, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court and the C.C.No.54626/2020 is renumbered as S.C.No.1161/2021.
Except the petitioner, all other accused who were tried before the Court of Sessions have all been acquitted on the score that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts by its judgment dated 12.09.2025.
4. The petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was unavailable for trial. Therefore, the concerned Court draws a split up charge sheet against this petitioner. The judgment of the concerned Court acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 read as follows:
"R E A S O N S
9. Points No. 1 to 4:- Learned Public Prosecutor argued, the prosecution produced the evidence of PW1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and M.O.1 to M.O.6 on their behalf. According to the prosecution the material particulars available in witness is more enough to convicted the accused. Therefore the prosecution pray for convicted the Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the alleged offence.
10. Counsel for the accused argued, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have not committed any offence as alleged. No one of the witnesses of the prosecution have supported the case of prosecution. Further, the accused counsel also argued though evidence of eye witnesses, injured, complainant, mahazar witnesses have cited in the charge sheet, but no one of the category of witness have been secured and examined by the prosecution, the accused -4- NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR are all entitled for acquittal for the charge made in against them.
11. The prosecution net case is, the accused are all have in furtherance of their object to murder and by that act intention to cause death of CW1, the accused persons have all assaulted on him and the accused be guilty of murder if once death of CW1 would be caused. With this background of the charge the deposition of witness who is all examined at before the court have takes it own meaning for appreciation of the charge. Accordingly, depositions of witness herein taken for my discussion.
12. CW7 Ashok Madiyal examined as PW1. According to the prosecution PW1 is the investigating officer. PW1 deposed on 1.03.2020 at evening 5.30 pm when PW1 was SHO of the police station CW1 appeared at before him and he lodged the written complaint. On the receipt of the complaint that PW1 registered the case in against the accused in Cr.No.166/2020 for the offece punishable 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC and sent the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate on that day itself. PW-1 further identified Ex.P1 complaint and his signature as per Ex.P1(a) and Ex.P2 FIR and his signature as per Ex.P2(a). On 12.03.2020, at 9.30 am Pw1 rushed to the place of incident viz., Flipkart office, Devarabesanahalli. to that place PW1 also secured CW4 and 5 panchas. From the place of incident CW1 have produced 3 feet 5 wooden re-piece and one wrist sized stone, PW1 seized the same
5 wooden repiece and one wrist sized stone at before the panchas. Into that respect PW1 also drawn one mahazar at before CW4 and 5 at the place of incident. Wherein as the CW1 injured point out the place of incident that PW1 draw the spot mahazar at before CW4 and 5 panchas. PW1 identified Ex.P3 mahazar and his signature as per Ex.P3(a). Thereafter, PW1 returned to police station along with 5 wooden repiece and one wrist sized stone to the police station. Wherein PW1 subjected the same 5 wooden repiece and one wrist sized stone into their police station PF No.39/2020. On the same day at 11.30 am PW1 recorded the further statement of CW1 injured. On the same day at the same time PW1 also recorded the statement of CW2 to CW5. On 16.06.2020, PW1 made a requisition at before the court for the body warrant in against Accused Nos.1 and 2. On 27.07.2020, PW1 sent a -5- NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR letter on requesting the wound certificate in pertains to CW1 injured. On 01.09.2020, PW1 received the said wound certificate from the medical officer and same was put into the case record. PW1 identified the wound certificate marked at Ex.P4 and signature of the witness marked at Ex.P4(a). As investigated concluded and since the material particulars finds in against the accused PW1 submitted the charge sheet to the court. PW1 identified MO-1 to 5. Witness also identified one stone. The same stone now marked at MO-6. PW1 further identified the accused Nos.1 and 2. Inspite of lengthy cross- examination by counsel for the accused, the testimony of PW1 rest in the record as unshaken.
13. If it summarize the prosecution case, in furtherance of common object of the accused to committed the murder of CW1 injured Chandra, the accused wrongfully restrained and assaulted on the CW1 injured by means of M.O.1 and 5 wooden re-peice and M.O.6 stone. Thereby the prosecution have the charge in against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 323, 324, 506, 504, 307 r/w 149 of I.P.C. With this being of charge the evidence of victim/injured, medical evidence as well as investigating officer evidence have take its own meaning to determine the charge in against the accused. Important to note, in despite of all en-devour to secured CW1 injured by issuing all kind of process including publication of proclamation warrant, CW1 have not been secured at before the court and hence evidence of CW1 have been dropped. CW4 and CW5 who they have been panch witness, they have also not secured and examined before the court. Thereby Ex.P3 Seizer mahazar though examined before the court, Ex.P3 Seizer mahazar have not been supported by the independent panch witness. Further, though PW1 who being the investigating officer and who he deposed in his evidence at before the court with respect to conduct of investigation of crime, his evidence have also not supported by the other injured witness, spot mahazar witnesses as well as seizer mahazar witness. Accordingly, though Ex.P3 seizer mahazar, Ex.P4 wound certificate, Ex.P1 complaint have it to be available on record the same are all the documents and evidence have not supported either by spot mahazar witness or seizer mahazar witness nor by injured.
-6-NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR
14. True, evidence of victim and medical officer have take its own meaning to convicted the accused even in the absence of other surrounding corroborative evidence. But case on record, CW1 who being injured he has not been available for his examination at before the court. When such being the case the attempt of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the offence gets its un-futile. Undoubtedly case on record the wound certificate though marked at before the court with consent of the accused counsel, the same wound certificate not supported by the ocular witness. Thereby the prosecution fail to corroborated the testimony of injured with medical evidence. If it once the prosecution fail to corroborated the medical evidence with the injured evidence the same uncorroborated case and testimony goes in favour of the accused and not in favour of prosecution. With this being of observation and as per principles of criminal law of justice, the prosecution fail to bring home any of the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, it utmost unsafe to convicted Accused Nos.1 and 2 based on uncorroborated, improper and non cogent evidence. Hence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 have entitle to sailed the benefit of doubt available in the case record. Accordingly, I have answered Points No.1 to 4 in the Negative."
The reasons so rendered by the concerned Court would undoubtedly enure to the benefit of the petitioner as well, since the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. In that light, permitting further trial against the petitioner, for eventuality of acquittal would be a waste of precious judicial time. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner.
-7-NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment of this Court dated 02-09-2022 passed in Crl.P.No.7720/2022, which reads as follows:
"4. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 01.12.2021, acquits accused Nos.1 to 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 21 in S.C.No.103/2018. At the relevant point in time, when the trial was on, the petitioner was not available for trial, as he was allegedly absconding and a split charge sheet was issued against the petitioner in S.C.No.87/2019 in terms of an order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 10.06.2019. The continuation of proceedings in S.C.No.87/2019 is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. Learned counsel, Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioner would contend that the allegations are the ones punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 427, 395, 149 of the IPC. The said allegation is necessarily to be common against all the accused and it is infact common against all the accused. The acquittal order passed by the concerned Court is on the basis of the complainant himself turning hostile. In the teeth of the fact that the complainant himself turned hostile, the Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be the same order as is passed by the concerned Court acquitting the aforesaid accused.
6. Learned HCGP would however refute the submission to contend that the petitioner would escape trial, should necessarily face trial and considered for acquittal by the concerned Court and this Court should not interfere at this juncture, as a person, who has escaped trial should not be shown any indulgence under section 482 of Cr.P.C .
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The allegation against the petitioner are the ones punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 427, 395, 149 of the IPC. The allegation was against 22 accused and the offences alleged were common, the allegations are also common. The concerned Court, by its order dated 01.12.2021, acquits accused Nos.1, to 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 21 by rendering the following reason:
REASONS
9. Poin"t No.1 to 5: The P.W.1 has stated that on 15.09.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. when P.W.4 was insider the Bar, somebody picked up quarrel with him and those persons damaged the Bar and hence, he sustained injuries. He has also stated that, the P.W.2 also sustained injuries in the incident and both of them taken treatment in the Wenlock hospital.
The P.W.2, P.W.4 and Babanna sustained injuries and therefore, he filed the first information before the Police. He has deposed that the police came to the Bar and drawn the panchanama in Ex.P.2. The P.W.2 has deposed that when he was in the Bar of P.W.1 many people assembled and one of them thrown stone towards him and therefore, himself and P.W.4 sustained injuries and took treatment in the hospital.
10. P.W.3 has deposed that on 15.09.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. the P.W.4 was inside the Bar, about 25 persons came to the Bar and there was quarrel between P.W.4 and those 25 persons. He has deposed that such 25 persons damaged the Bar and he took treatment in Wenlock hospital for the injuries sustained in the incident. The P.W.1 to 3 have not stated the name of any of the accused of this case and even not identified the accused. The prosecution treated these witnesses hostile and cross examined. The P.W.1 to 3 have totally denied the allegation that the accused of this case have quarrelled with P.W.4, assaulted P.W.7 to 7, damaged the Bar and committed dacoity of Rs.2,000/- from the Bar.
-9-NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR
11. The P.W.4 to 7 have totally denied the incident itself. The P.W.8 and P.W.9 have deposed that they have not witnesses the incident. The P.W.4 to 9 have been cross examined by the prosecution and even in the cross-examination the P.W.4 to 9 denied the allegation made by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence against the accused that they have formed unlawful assembly, committed criminal trespass in the Bar of P.W.1, voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 to 7 and committed dacoity of Rs.2,000/- from the Bar of P.W.1. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted for the offences alleged against them because of insufficient evidence. Accordingly, I answer these points in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure the accused No.1 to 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 21 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 395, 427 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.
Their bal bond stands cancelled.
Office is directed to retain the material objects as they are required in split up cases."
9. The reason for acquitting the other accused as afore-quoted is the fact that the complainant himself had turned hostile and other witnesses had not supported the charge sheet. If the complainant had turned hostile and it resulting in acquittal of the aforesaid accused, it cannot but be said that the same would be applicable to the petitioner as well, notwithstanding the fact that he was not available for trial. It is not the case of sending the petitioner for trial for the very same offences and result being the same as is ordered on 01.12.2021 in S.C.No.103/2018. It would be an exercise in futility to permit further trial, which would be of no utility and be a waste of judicial time.
10. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR Court in Crl.P.4796/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench considering identical set of facts has held as follows:
"12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that petitioner/accused was never traced and non-bailable warrant issued against him was never executed. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268 has held quashing of charge and order discharging co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations and if said judgment had reached finality. It is also held that discharge of a co-accused by the High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case, is just and proper. In another ruling in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551 this Court has held as under:
"The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against other available accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge sheet.... In the instant case also, the full pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed."
13. Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect:
"As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer pending nor he can close the case as he has to await appearance of the accused or the production by the State, for
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR passing orders regarding undergoing sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. As the entire material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as he is extended for his co-accused. Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt."
14. In this background, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that not only complainant but also other witnesses including the inmates of ambulance in which they were travelling on the date of incident, had turned hostile in the proceedings which was continued against co-accused. Though, P.W.1 - complainant had admitted that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1 and had also admitted that he has given a statement identifying the accused before the Investigation Officer, he did not identify the accused persons present before Court. In fact, statements given by him as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 when confronted, he denied the same and had also denied the suggestion put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P- 2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2 to P.W.8 had not identified the accused persons present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In fact, they have not even identified the statements made by them before the Investigating Officer and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross- examination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, taking into consideration said evidence available on record Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution would not come to their assistance. In fact, witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P- 40, who were examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have also turned hostile and they have stated that police had called them a year back to the police station and when they went to the police station, they had not seen any accused persons in police station. However, they admit police having taken
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR their signatures on the papers and contents of it were not known to them.
15. It is in this background, trial Court on appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the accused persons by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients of provisions of the offence alleged against them. In fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to please on community of people, the Investigating Officer might have falsely implicated the accused persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be received from the public or other community people and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in the present petition is examined, it can be noticed that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner is similar, identical and in fact, it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33, who 15 were tried in S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had been acquitted.
16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that judgment rendered by trial Court insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is similar and identical to the charge made against the present petitioner. This Court does not find any independent or separate material having been placed by the prosecution against present petitioner to put him on trial once again and directing the petitioner-accused to undergo the order of trial, which ultimately would fetch same result as that of accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33. When allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made against present petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that they are identical, similar and inseparable in nature and no independent decision can be taken against the present petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be served even if the present petitioner is ordered to be tried by the trial Court.
17. In view of the afore stated facts and the law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would emerge that there would be no harm or injustice that would be caused to prosecution if benefit of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR acquittal order is passed in favour of accused - petitioner, since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 against whom similar allegation had been made is already acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State that petitioner should not be extended said benefit, since he is an absconder, by relying upon judgment of Coordinate Bench this Court is not inclined to accept said contention for single reason that said judgment had been rendered based on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 where under Apex Court after noticing the facts obtained in the said case, had held that benefit of acquittal, should be extended to the appellant, since co-accused had been acquitted and held that a departure can be made in cases where accused has not surrendered "after conviction" in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. As such, noticing earlier position of law laid down it was held by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal of a accused for same offence on same set of facts and on similar accusations, if considered, it would entile for acquittal of co-accused also.
18. In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, in Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar petitioner is concerned.
In view of criminal petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected."
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:5479 CRL.P No. 556 of 2026 HC-KAR The Co-ordinate Bench was considering a case where the co-accused who had escaped trial had not surrendered or was not arrested by the police.
In the light of there being no evidence against any of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioner being tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would become an exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no evidence or a specific charge against this petitioner, that was not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner."
In the light of the afore-quoted order and the reasons rendered in S.C.No.1161/2021 qua accused Nos.1 and 2, the petition deserves to succeed, for the very same reasons rendered supra.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.2032/2022 pending before the XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, stand quashed qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31/CT:SS