Karnataka High Court
Raja vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:33714
CRL.P No. 12218 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12218 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
RAJA
S/O NANJAIAH@ BILIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KODAVATHI VILLAGE,
HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.N. RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJAGOPALANAGAR POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
by AL BHAGYA BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. NAGARAJA B K
KARNATAKA
S/O KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O HANUMANTHANAGAR,
BYRANAYAKANAHALLI,
KODAVATHI POST,
HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED:22.08.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS
DEFERRED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:33714
CRL.P No. 12218 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.186/2025, ON THE FILE OF THE LRD. LV ADDL.CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH-56) BENGALURU, FOR
OFFENCES PU/S 302, 120B, R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S
25(1)(B)(b), 4 OF ARMS ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.4 is
seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in
SC.No.186/2025 for offences punishable under Sections
302 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC and under
Section 25(1B)(b) and Section 4 of the Arms Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing
the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by
the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.271/2022, has
pointed out that the other co-accused, who were tried for
identical allegations and on the very same set of evidence,
have been acquitted by a judgment and order of acquittal
dated 28.03.2025. It is submitted that the substratum of
the prosecution case having failed in the earlier trial, there
NC: 2025:KHC:33714
HC-KAR
remains no independent material to continue proceedings
against the present petitioner. Placing reliance on the said
judgment of acquittal and further relying upon the view
taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in cases of
similar nature, it is urged that the continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an
abuse of process of law.
3. In order to substantiate the contention that this
Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure can take judicial notice
of the acquittal of co-accused in a connected case and
quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner,
reliance has been placed on two recent pronouncements of
the Co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.12505/2023,
W.P.No.6359/2025 and Crl.P.No.4703/2025. In the said
cases, the Co-ordinate Bench has categorically held that
once the co-accused, who were alleged to have played a
principal role in the commission of the offence, stand
acquitted after a full-fledged trial, the continuance of
NC: 2025:KHC:33714
HC-KAR
criminal proceedings against another accused on the same
allegations would be wholly unjustified and would only
result in multiplicity of proceedings without serving the
ends of justice.
4. In the present case, it is not in dispute that
accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8, who were similarly placed
as the present petitioner and against whom identical
allegations were levied, have been acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read
with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 25(1B)(b)
and Section 4 of the Arms Act.
5. The Co-ordinate Bench in a reported judgment
in the case of Mohammed Ilias vs .State of Karnataka1
in a similar set of facts has also categorically held that in
cases where evidence adduced in the case against all the
accused persons is inseparable and indivisible and that
being so one accused cannot be treated differently on the
2001 SCC OnLineKar 260
NC: 2025:KHC:33714
HC-KAR
basis of the said evidence. Once the trial Court, upon
appreciation of the entire evidence led by the prosecution,
has arrived at a categorical finding that the prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt
against the principal accused, there would be no purpose
in subjecting the petitioner to an independent trial based
on the very same set of allegations and evidence.
6. This Court is also mindful of the principle laid
down by the Co-ordinate Bench that in such
circumstances, the High Court, in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is not
powerless to interdict further proceedings. Such
intervention is warranted not only to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court but also to secure the ends of justice.
Having regard to the fact that the co-accused, who were
standing trial for the very same offences, have been
acquitted and set at liberty, the continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner would be an exercise in
NC: 2025:KHC:33714
HC-KAR
futility. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for.
7. For the reasons stated supra, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The proceedings pending in S.C.No.186/2025
on the file of the learned LV Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-56), as
against the petitioner are hereby quashed.
(iii) The Jail Superintendent, Central Prison,
Bengaluru, is directed to release the petitioner
forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in
any other case.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
