Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajakumara vs State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45050
CRL.P No. 12946 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12946 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJAKUMARA
S/O MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.154, 5TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS,
RUKMININAGAR, NAGASANDRA,
BANGALORE, BANGALORE PS
BANGALORE-560073.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.M. YASHAVANTHSWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE BY SRIRAMPURA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE,
Digitally signed by B
REP. BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
BANGALORE-560001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. SRI K.M. MAHADEVSWAMY
S/O K.R. MAILARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
MYLAR LINGESHWAR WINES
R/AT KITTADAL VILLAGE,
MATTHODU, MATTHODU HOBLI,
HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577533.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45050
CRL.P No. 12946 of 2023
AND CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE
AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO1. IN CRIME NO.156/2012
IN C.C.NO.332/2019 OF SRIRAMPURA POLICE, HOSADURGA TALUK,
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363 R/W 34 OF IPC IN PENDING ON THE
FILE OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. AT
HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT AND TO ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner - accused No.1 has been chargesheeted for
the offences punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34
of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant
had purchased a Scorpio vehicle from the accused No.1 by
making payment of advance amount and took possession of the
vehicle. Since the complainant did not make payment of
balance consideration amount, the accused Nos.2 to 4 at the
instance of accused No.1 kidnapped the complainant on
4.10.2012 at 2.30 p.m. on Kellodu bridge on Hosadurga -
Srirampura road in the same vehicle and tied his mouth, hands
and legs with baniyan and went to Banavara - Arasikere road
via Huliyaru and they dropped the complainant near
Chikkathirupathi in Arasikere.
3. In response to suit summons, the accused Nos.2 to
4 appeared and they were enlarged on bail, since the accused
No.1 remained absent. NBW issued against him returned
NC: 2023:KHC:45050
unexecuted and therefore a separate case came to be
registered against the accused No.1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the only allegation against the petitioner is that he instigated
the other accused to abduct CW1. He further submits that the
other accused have been acquitted of the offence by the Trial
Court on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
5. The learned HCGP would submit that the petitioner
having absconded is not entitled for the relief sought for, and
sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
7. Perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that
the charges against the Petitioner and accused Nos.1 to 5 are
similar and they are not distinct and separate.
8. It is settled law that when there are no separate
and distinct allegations made against the petitioner herein and
other accused persons, and when other accused persons are
acquitted, it would amount to abuse of process of law, if the
prosecution is ordered to be continued against the petitioner.
9. It is also a settled law that the judgment of
acquittal of co-accused would not be admissible within the
meaning of Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act and as such,
the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the co-accused.
NC: 2023:KHC:45050
However, the said legal principle is applicable only when the
material witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution.
10. In the instant case, the prosecution had examined
all the charge sheet witnesses, and also marked the documents
which were produced along with the charge sheet, but failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.2
to 4 kidnapped the complainant to constitute the offence
punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of IPC. If
the petitioner is subjected to trial, it would be a futile exercise,
since the probability of his conviction is remote and bleak. So
as to prevent the abuse of process of law and to maintain
parity, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned
proceedings. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.332/2019
pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hosadurga, Chitradurga District stands quashed and the
petitioner is acquitted of the offences alleged against him.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKM
