M N Suresh @ M S Suresh vs State By
2023 Latest Caselaw 8774 Kant

Karnataka High Court

M N Suresh @ M S Suresh vs State By on 28 November, 2023

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                   -1-
                                                               NC: 2023:KHC:42877
                                                          CRL.P No. 10631 of 2023




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                              DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
                                                 BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                  CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10631 OF 2023
                        BETWEEN:

                        1.    M.N. SURESH @ M.S. SURESH
                              S/O SANNA NINGEGOWDA
                              AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
                              R/AT NO.496, SRIRAMPURA
                              NEAR WATER TANK, MYSURU-570008
                              PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.261
                              60 FT. ROAD, BEML 2ND STAGE
                              RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BOGADI
Digitally signed by B         RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSURU-570022.
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                                                            ...PETITIONER
KARNATAKA
                        (BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
                        AND:

                        1.    STATE BY RURAL POLICE STATION
                              DAVANAGERE
                              REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
                              HIGH COURT BUILDING
                              BENGALURU-560001.

                        2.    F.A. SHAIK
                              TAHSILDAR
                              OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR
                              DAVANAGERE TALUK
                              DAVANAGERE -577002.
                                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                        (BY SRI. VENKATASATYANARAYANA A, HCGP)

                             THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
                        QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.955/2009,
                        PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC I COURT DAVANAGERE,
                        FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 468, 471, 419, 420 OF IPC.
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2023:KHC:42877
                                        CRL.P No. 10631 of 2023




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent - State.

2. Petitioner - accused No.31 who is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 419, 420 of IPC is before this Court.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner along with other accused by impersonation and fabricating the documents produced the same before the Sub-Registrar and got registered in their names the land belonging to the Government.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet was split up since the petitioner was absconding and the trial Court after conducting trial against the other accused passed the judgment of acquittal stating that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Learned HCGP submits that the petitioner having absconded is not entitled for the relief sought for in this petition and sought for dismissal of the petition.

NC: 2023:KHC:42877

6. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The trial Court in C.C.No.446/2004 passed the judgment dated 05.06.2012 acquitting the accused therein on the ground that the prosecution has not recorded the statements of villagers and the Sub-Registrar and the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation has not been examined. Further the evidence of P.W.2 i.e., the Sub- Registrar does not corroborate with the case of the prosecution.

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. In Crl.P.No.6857/2020, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held 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, in the said case, the decision was rendered in the context that only two witnesses viz., PWs.1 and 2 who were examined, have not supported the case of the prosecution, but the eyewitnesses to the incident and other witnesses have not been examined before the Trial Court.

NC: 2023:KHC:42877

10. In the instant case, the prosecution case solely revolves on the statement of the sub registrar and the Tahasildar, and the court having held that the evidence of the sub registrar and the Tahasildar does not corroborate with the case of the prosecution, 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 petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.955/2009 on the file of the JMFC-I, Davanagere, insofar as it relates to petitioner herein, stands quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VP