Sandeep K V vs The State Through
2023 Latest Caselaw 3304 Kant

                                          -1-
                                                NC: 2023:KHC:20549
                                                 CRL.P No. 8598 of 2022
                                            C/W CRL.P No. 10757 of 2022



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                      BEFORE
                     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                        CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8598 OF 2022
                                          C/W
                       CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10757 OF 2022


              IN CRL.P NO. 8598/2022
              BETWEEN:

              SANDEEP K. V,
              AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
              S/O GOVINDAN VALAPPIL,
              R/A PADMALAYAM HOUSE,
              PO MATUL NORTH,
              KANNUR, KERALA STATE,
              KANNUR, KERALA - 670 001.

                                                           ...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K (BY SRI. P P HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOATE FOR,
Location: HIGH      SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
              AND:

              1.    THE STATE - THROUGH
                    SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                    JAYAPURA POLICE STATION,
                    CHIKKAMAGALURU,
                    REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
                    PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                    AT BENGALURU - 560 001.
                           -2-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC:20549
                                  CRL.P No. 8598 of 2022
                             C/W CRL.P No. 10757 of 2022



2.   SRI. G C VIJAYA RAGHAV,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     S/O LATE G K CHANDRASHEKAR,
     R/A GUDDETHOOTA VILLAGE,
     KOPPA TALUK,
     CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 123,
     OCCUPATION - AGRICULTURIST.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI. Y HARIPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.79/2020 (ARISING OUT
OF CR.NO.8/2020 OF JAYAPURA POLICE STATION ) ON THE
FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKAMGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 395, 450, 506 OF
IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER HEREIN/ACCUSED NO.10 IS
CONCERNED.

IN CRL.P NO. 10757/2022
BETWEEN:

MR. AKSHAY KUMAR @ AKSHAY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
S/O ODIYAPPA POOJARI,
R/A KODIPADI, KABAKA POST,
PUTTUR TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
KARNATAKA - 574 201.

                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P P HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOATE FOR,
    SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
                            -3-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC:20549
                                  CRL.P No. 8598 of 2022
                             C/W CRL.P No. 10757 of 2022



AND:

1.   THE STATE - THROUGH
     SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
     JAYAPURA POLICE STATION,
     CHIKKAMAGALURU,
     REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
     PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     AT BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   SRI. G C VIJAYA RAGHAV,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     S/O LATE G K CHANDRASHEKAR,
     R/A GUDDETHOOTA VILLAGE,
     KOPPA TALUK,
     CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 123,
     OCCUPATION - AGRICULTURIST.

                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI. Y HARIPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.79/2020 (ARISING OUT
OF CR.NO.8/2020 OF JAYAPURA P.S) ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S. 395, 450, 506 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER HEREIN/ACCUSED NO.14 IS CONCERNED.

       THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -4-
                                       NC: 2023:KHC:20549
                                       CRL.P No. 8598 of 2022
                                  C/W CRL.P No. 10757 of 2022



                               ORDER

IN Crl.P.8598/2022

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

proceedings in S.C.No.79/2020 registered for the offence

punishable under Sections 395 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short)

2. Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior counsel for

Sri. Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP appearing for

respondent No.1 and Sri. Y. Hariprasad, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner has moved this matter on the ground

that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment

rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.2117/2022, which was

concerning accused No.17. This Court followed the judgment of

the Co-ordinate Bench, which was concerning accused No.14 to

allow the petition. As the finding by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court was that accused Nos.14 to 17 were all standing

outside and watching the entry of others or otherwise. The Co-

ordinate Bench has held that accused No.15, therein, had not

NC: 2023:KHC:20549 CRL.P No. 8598 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 10757 of 2022

performed any Act that would become the ingredient of Section

395 of the IPC. Therefore, the same order was passed in

favour of accused No.17, as accused Nos.14 to 17 were alleged

of the similar acts. The petitioner in the case at hand is

accused No.10 and against accused No.10, the ingredients are

different and the allegations are different. The petitioner cannot

draw parallel to what is found against accused Nos.14 to 17 in

the charge sheet, and contend that accused No.10 is also to be

given the same benefit.

Therefore, there is no ground to follow the earlier order,

it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. The

petition thus stands rejected.

IN Crl.P. 10757/2022

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

proceedings in S.C.No.79/2020 registered for the offence

punishable under Sections 395 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860. ('IPC' for short).

2. Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior counsel for

Sri. Venkatesh Somareddi, learned counsel appearing for the

NC: 2023:KHC:20549 CRL.P No. 8598 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 10757 of 2022

petitioner, Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP appearing for

respondent No.1 and Sri. Y. Hariprasad, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The learned Senior counsel submits that the issue in

the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court

qua accused Nos.15 and 17, as the petitioner is accused No.14.

The Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.4271/2020 disposed on

18.01.2021 has held as follows:

"3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 06.03.2020 at about 10.30 p.m., when the complainant and his wife were in their house, a group of 15-20 persons trespassed into their house by 3 holding swords, clubs and thereby committed dacoity by stealing Rs.9,49,000/- worth of gold and silver ornaments and a cash of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is also alleged that they also tied hands of the complainant with gum tape and when the wife of the complainant ran into the bedroom to save herself, one among the gang pulled her out from the room and forcefully held her shoulder and rest of the persons have searched every room. This petitioner has arrayed as accused No.11 in the remand report and as accused No.15 in the chargesheet. The allegations against this petitioner is that he was watching outside along with other accused Nos.14 to 17. This petitioner is arrayed as accused based on the statement of co-accused and also the statement of this petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case was registered against the unknown persons. This petitioner has been arrested from his residence and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

There is no material before this Court that this petitioner has involved in the said case. The learned counsel also submits that this petitioner has been arrayed as accused

NC: 2023:KHC:20549 CRL.P No. 8598 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 10757 of 2022

No.15 on only the say of co- accused and the same is hit by under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel would also submits that no test identification parade was conducted and there is no any legally admissible material against the petitioner/accused to connect him with the alleged offence. The continuance of the proceedings against this petitioner amounts to abuse of process. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

5. The counsel appearing for the State would submit that this petitioner is arrayed as accused on the statement of co-accused and the petitioner.

6. Having heard the submissions made by both the learned counsel and perused the records. At the first instance, the case was registered against the unknown persons. This petitioner was arrested in his residence and while filing the chargesheet, he was arrayed as accused No.15. Though in the complaint it is stated that gold and silver ornaments worth of Rs.9,49,000/- and a cash of Rs.2,50,000/- was the subject matter of dacoity, but nothing has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner except the statement of the co-accused and also the voluntary statement of this petitioner. The voluntary statement is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and also the statement of the co-accused. The prosecution also failed to place any material on record or to show that he was at the sport at the time of committing dacoity. The call details are also not placed to substantiate the case of prosecution. The contention of the petitioner's counsel that no test identification is conducted cannot be accepted for the reason that he was not at the spot but watching outside. When such being the case, in the absence of any substantive material to proceed against this petitioner, the Apex Court in the judgment delivered on 31st July 2018 in Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer in para 14 held that in absence of any conviction based on voluntary statement and co-accused statement. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment and also having perused the material available on record connect the petitioner/accused No.15, there is no any recovery and he has been arrayed as accused No.15 only on the basis of the voluntary statement so which has been hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. If, the criminal proceedings is continued against the petitioner/accused

NC: 2023:KHC:20549 CRL.P No. 8598 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 10757 of 2022

in the absence of substantive material which leads to miscarriage of justice and also it amounts to abuse of process."

(emphasis supplied)

4. The findings against the petitioner, who is accused

No.14 as observed by the Co-ordinate Bench is that accused

Nos.14 to 17 were watching outside and have not entered the

scene or place of crime. On that score, the Co-ordinate Bench

had quashed the proceedings against accused No.15. In the

light of the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench that accused

Nos.14 to 17 were all waiting outside. The present proceedings

against the petitioner, who is accused No.14 would stand

covered.

5. Yet another circumstance is that this Court in

Crl.P.No.2117/2022 disposed on 22.03.2022 concerning

accused No.17 had quashed the proceedings following the

reasons rendered qua accused No.15. Therefore, the

petitioner, who is accused No.14 is also entitled to the same

benefit that is granted by the Co-ordinate Bench and this Court.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

1. Criminal petition is allowed.

NC: 2023:KHC:20549 CRL.P No. 8598 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 10757 of 2022

2. Proceedings in S.C.No.79/2020 pending before

the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Chikkamagaluru stands quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JY

CT: BHK