Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shankara vs State Of Karnataka By on 21 November, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:41812
CRL.P No. 7567 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. 7567 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHANKARA
S/O. SHIVANANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAIAH'S BUILDING,
1ST CROSS, GANGONDANAHALLI,
INDIRANAGAR, NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 073.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TEJAS N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE,
BANGALORE - 560 092.
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally signed by B
K HCK, BANGALORE - 01)
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SRI. K.P. SATYANARAYANA
POLICE INSPECTOR,
ADDRESS: BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE
STATION, MYSORE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATSATHYANARAYAN A, HCGP FOR R1, R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.406/2017 WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-57) AS AN
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:41812
CRL.P No. 7567 of 2023
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF
CRIME NO.448/2014 OF BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 399 AND 402 OF IPC AND
GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE
COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is charge sheeted for the offences
punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC
2. The case of the prosecution is that:
On 21.12.2014 at about 9.30 p.m., within the limits of
Byatrayapura Police Station at Pramodha Layout underpass
situated near toll of Nice Road, the accused persons had
assembled in Tata Indica car and in two wheelers and
possessed deadly weapons like rod, sickle, knife and clubs and
were making preparation to commit dacoity by threatening with
the weapons which they possessed, the police on noticing,
arrested the accused persons and seized the deadly weapons
by drawing mahazar.
3. The petitioner having absconded, the charge sheet
was split-up and the Trial court after appreciating the evidence
on record acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5 and 8 for the offences
punishable under Section 399 and 42 of IPC.
4. The charge against accused No.10 and the other
accused is that , the accused persons by forming an unlawful
assembly in a Tata indica car and two wheelers by holding
NC: 2023:KHC:41812
deadly weapons like rod, sickle, knife and clubs, the accused
were preparing to commit dacoity against the pedestrians at
open space and therefore committed the offences punishable
under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.
5. The prosecution to prove its case examined P.W.1
to P.W.6 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P3 and material
documents at MO.1 to MO.11.
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 and 8
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.
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
NC: 2023:KHC:41812
which were produced along with the charge sheet, but failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence and
records, acquitted the said accused on the ground that the
prosecution had not examined any individual eye-witnesses,
except the official witnesses and the evidence tendered by the
said official witnesses did not establish the guilt of the said
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. If the petitioner is
subjected to trial, 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 S.C.No.406/2017
pending on the file of the LVI Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru City (CCH-57),
insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused No.10
stands quashed and the petitioner is acquitted of
the offences alleged against him.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
