Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha @ Anali Manja vs State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:41814
CRL.P No. 3239 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3239 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA @ ANALI MANJA
S/O THIMMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
NO 1254, 4TH CROSS,
7TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK,
BENGALURU 560 026.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BYATARAYANAPURA P S,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
(BY SRI. VENKATSATYANARAYAN A, HCGP)
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20756/2021
REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN
CRIME NO.140/2013 OF RESPONDENT BYATARAYANAPURA
POLICE FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B), 399 AND 402 OF IPC,
WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XXXI
ADDITIONAL C.M.M., AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:41814
CRL.P No. 3239 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner is charge sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 399, 402 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
On 26.3.2013, at about 7.00 p.m., the complainant received
credible information that, near BHEL company, Mysore Road,
No.321, near SLV Sawmill and Wood Industries Factory within
the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Police Station, the
associates of Vinay who is in prison had given instructions to
his followers to attack Loki and Datta with the weapons and rob
the valuables and murder them. On instructions, the said
accused armed with deadly weapons were making preparations
for committing dacoity. Immediately, CW1-Police Inspector
along with CW.5 to 8 and panchas CW.2 and 3 rushed to the
spot and found 10 persons assembled, and on confirmation,
raided the spot and Police Inspector apprehended 5 accused
persons, seized the vehicles, mobile phones and the deadly
weapons, and the other accused persons fled away from the
spot. Thereafter, Rajesh, Manjunath, Mahendra, Prashanth and
Ravi were arrested and were brought to the Byatarayanapura
Police Station.
3. The petitioner herein having absconded, the charge
sheet was split up and the Trial Court after conducting trial
against accused Nos.3 to 6 and appreciating the evidence on
record, acquitted them on the ground that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the said accused beyond all
reasonable doubts.
NC: 2023:KHC:41814
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the charge against the present accused and accused Nos.3 to 6
is similar and not distinct and the Trial Court having acquitted
the accused Nos.3 to 6, and to maintain parity, the impugned
proceedings against the petitioner herein requires to be
quashed.
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. I have Considered the submissions.
7. Perusal of the charge sheet material indicated that
the charges against the Petitioner and accused Nos.3 to 6 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 Indian Evidence Act and as
such, the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the co-
accused. However, the said legal principle is applicable when
the material witnesses have not been examined resulting in
acquittal.
NC: 2023:KHC:41814
10. The Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.3 to 6 on the
ground that none of the independent witnesses were examined
and only official witnesses were examined and the evidence
tendered by the said official witnesses did not establish the
guilt of the said accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The
witnesses to be examined are one and the same. Therefore, It
would be a futile exercise, if the petitioner is subjected to trial,
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.20756/2021
pending on the file of the XXXI Additional C.M.M. at
Bengaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioner-
accused No.2 stands quashed and consequently,
the petitioner is acquitted of the said offences.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
