Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Chellakumar @ Chella on 21 October, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42116
CRL.RP No. 645 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 645 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH., HCGP)
AND:
1. CHELLAKUMAR @ CHELLA
S/O LATE NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
NO.265, 7TH CROSS, A BLOCK,
Digitally signed by JANAKIRAM LAYOUT, MARUTHI SEVANAGAR
DHARMALINGAM BANGALORE CITY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF PRESENTLY R/A KHANSIRAM NAGARA
KARNATAKA VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-560097
2. MANJUANTH @ MANJA
S/O MAHENDRAN
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/ NEAR MUNESWARA TEMPLE
2ND CROSS, PERRIYARNAGAR
TANNERY ROAD, BANGALORE-45
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M R C MANOHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. S.NAGARAJA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42116
CRL.RP No. 645 of 2016
THIS CRL.R.P. IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
SPP FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED TO SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED 25.02.2016 IN S.C.NO.306/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE
LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., BANGALORE CITY PASSED IN
RESPECT OF OFFENCES P/U/S 399,402 OF IPC REGISTERED IN
CR.NO.160/2012 OF VIDYARANYAPURA P.S., AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the petitioner-State. None
appears for the respondents-accused.
2. The respondents were required to face the
criminal proceedings in S.C.No.306/2014 on the basis of
the split-up charge sheet came to be filed for the offence
punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC arising out
of Crime No.160/2012 of Vidyaranyapura Police Station,
Bengaluru.
3. The brief facts of the case in brief which are
utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision
petition are as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:42116
Based on the complaint of the police personnel, who
had the credible information that some people had
gathered and they were prepared to committing docoity,
Vidyaranayapura Police have registered a criminal case in
Crime No.160/2012. In the raid, accused No.4 was
apprehended by the police and accused No.1, 2 and 3
escaped from the clutches of the raid parties and they are
absconded.
4. From the custody of accused No.4, incriminating
materials were seized and panchanama was drawn and
complaint came to be lodged by Sri. Sudarshan Singh, PSI
of Vidyaranayapura Police Station.
5. The Station House Officer after registering the
case, investigated the case and filed charge sheet against
accused No.4 showing accused Nos.1 to 3 were absconded
and hence spilt-up charge sheet came to be filed.
6. Accused No.4 contested the matter and after due
trial, the prosecution was unable to prove the panchanama
as well as the incriminating material having been seized
NC: 2024:KHC:42116
from the custody of accused No.4. Admittedly, the names
of accused Nos.1 to 3 were revealed by accused No.4 and
thereafter, they have been shown as absconding accused.
7. In this split-up charge sheet, which was registered
as S.C.No.306/2014, the presence of accused No.1 and 2
were secured. They filed an application for discharge on
the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of
Hyder Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2015
KAR 970. Learned trial Magistrate after hearing the
parties allowed the request of the accused and disposed of
the case as against accused Nos.1 and 2 by order dated
25.02.2016.
8. Validity of the said order is called in question in
this revision petition by the state.
9. Sri.Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court
Government Pleader reiterated the grounds urged in the
revision petition and contended that mere fact of accused
No.4 being acquitted from the case would not ipso facto
make out a case for disposal of the case as against the
NC: 2024:KHC:42116
remaining accused persons inasmuch as admittedly they
got absconded from the seen of offence and split-up
charge sheet is filed and therefore, sought for allowing the
revision petition.
10. No representation on behalf of the respondents-
accused No.1 and 2 though they have engaged the
services of an Advocate.
11. Having heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader, this Court perused the material on record
meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it
is clear that learned trial Magistrate not only placed
reliance on the principles of law enunciated in the case of
Hyder Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2015
KAR 970, but also taken into consideration the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Razak
VS. State of West Bengal, 2007 (15) SCC 305 and
found that the material evidence on record is not sufficient
against accused No.1 and 2, who are the respondents No.1
and 2 in this revision petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:42116
12. Since the main case as against accused No.4 in
S.C.No.407/2013 got acquitted on merits, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the
revision petition is always sufficient to allow the revision
petition.
13. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served
by holding a trial against the remaining accused as
panchanama is not proved.
14. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
CT: JL
