r/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act,
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
pursuant to FIR in Crime No.109/2019. The offences alleged
171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 36 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and
4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner
Court passed in the cases of G. Moideen @ Cheriyan -
Crl.R.P.No.140/2023 dated 23.08.2023, Muzaffar Ahmed Vs. The
H.H. Srimad Raghavendra Theertha swamiji -
Crl.P.No.8667/2019 dated 12.11.2020 and Mr. S.A.K. Abdul
Lathief Vs. The State of Karnataka and others -
consequent quashment of proceedings against him.
5. This Court in the case of G. Moideen @ Cheriyan -
11. The specific contention of the prosecution as
per the charge sheet is that the accused conspired together
and accused No.1 armed with revolver projected himself as
the Director of NCIB arranged the Car with the Board and
Emblem to suit the said designation, accompanied by
accused Nos. 2 to 6 as his body guards and conspired with
accused Nos.9 to 15 to extract money from the general
public. The specific allegation made against the petitioner,
who is arrayed as accused No.8 is that he along with
accused No.7 booked Room No.201 at Sai Arya Lodge for
the stay of Accused No.1 and on 16.08.2019 he met
accused No.1 along with accused No.7 and participated in
the meeting that was held in the said room.
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
12. My attention was drawn to the statements of
CWs.4 and 5, who are said to be the owners of Sai Arya
Lodge. The witnesses specifically state that it was accused
No.7, who called and requested to book a Room for the
Director of NCIB i.e, accused No.1 and on the basis of such
request they booked the room. Thereafter, accused No.1
along with other accused came there. This petitioner, who is
arrayed as accused No.8 came to the said Sai Arya Lodge
on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. and participated in the meeting
that was held by accused Nos.1 to 8. Therefore, the
contention of the prosecution that it was this petitioner, who
booked the room does not find any support in the charge
sheet materials. As a result, the only allegation that remains
against the petitioner is that he met accused No.1 in Room
No.201 of Sai Arya Lodge on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. and
was present in the meeting. If this contention of the
prosecution is to be accepted as it is, none of the penal
provisions invoked by the Investigating Officer could be
made applicable against the petitioner.
13. It is also to be noted that even in the voluntary
statement of accused No.1, he refers to accused No.7 with
whom he requested to get a room booked in Mangaluru and
does not refer to accused No.8. Accused No.1 in his
voluntary statement only states that accused No.8 had
accompanied accused No.7 and visited him in Mangaluru.
When no semblance of commission of offence goes against
the petitioner, except saying that he met accused No.1 in the
Hotel Room, I am of the opinion, that there are no sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the petitioner/accused No.8
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
for any of the above provisions. Under such circumstances,
he is entitled for discharge.
14. I have gone through the impugned order
passed by the trial Court. It has not considered the materials
on record against the present petitioner to form an opinion
that there are prima facie materials against the petitioner to
constitute any of the offences. Even if the allegations made
in the charge sheet are to be accepted as it is, none of the
penal provisions could be invoked and there are no sufficient
grounds to proceed against the petitioner/accused No.8.
15. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I
answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to the
pass the following :-
ORDER
i) The revision petition is allowed.
ii) Criminal proceedings initiated against accused
No.8 in S.C.No.86/2020 for the offence punishable under
punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 109, 399,
402, 420, 36 r/w Section 149 of IPC, and under Sections 3
and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 7 of
the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act,
2005, is quashed.
iii) Petitioner/Accused No.8 is discharged for the
above said offences."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
6. This Court in the case of Muzaffar Ahmed Vs. The
State of Karnataka - W.P.No.51866/2019 dated 03.08.2022,,
quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused No.9 (in
C.C.No.2537/2019) and held as under:
"1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. To call for records.
b. Issue writ or order or direction in the
nature of certiorari by quashing THE entire
proceedings in CC No.2537/2019 for the offence
punishable under section 170, 171, 419, 120(B),
109, 399, 402, 420 and 36 r/w 149 of IPC and
section 3 and 25 of Arms Act and section 7 of
State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper
Use) Act, 2005 of Mangaluru East Police, on the
file of VI JMFC at Mangaluru East Police, on the
file of VI JMFC at Mangaluru and further
consequences thereon, which is produced at
Annexure-A and the charge sheet at Annexure-
G in the interest of justice and equity.
c. Issue any order/s or direction in the
above case as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. On 16.08.2019 at 5.00 pm upon receiving certain
information, the respondent-police had submitted a
requisition to the Court seeking permission to register a
complaint and raid the premises where certain persons were
stated to be staying claiming to be NCIB directors, the police
officials reached the said spot at 5.30 p.m, when the persons
there seeing the police ran away with their car. However, the
police were able to nab them and thereafter interrogated
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
those person, who revealed their respective names. At that
time, upon a search of one Boppanna, a revolver was
recovered with 8 live cartridges apart from certain monies
and mobile phones. Further recoveries were made and
thereafter a case came to be registered for offences under
Sections 170, 171, 419, 420, 120-B, 399, 406 r/w 149 of IPC
and Section 3 and 25 of Arms Act and State Emblem of India
Act, 2005, on which basis Cr. No.109/2019 came to be
registered.
3. During the course of investigation, the respondent-
police recorded evidence of various persons wherein certain
information as regards the involvement of the accused
therein was made known to the police. One of the statement
which has been made by CW-9 Abdul Sheriff is that he had
been introduced by the petitioner to one Mr.Girish Rai, and
from time to time paid 1,07,00,000/- was paid to Mr.Girish
Rai to settle the case of the brother of the said Abdul Sheriff
against whom certain proceedings had been taken by the
Investigation Officer at Bangalore International Airport, while
illegally transporting gold. The said CW-9 had stated that
despite amount having been received, the said case has not
been settled and therefore, they had followed up again with
the petitioner and then the said Abdul Sheriff visited the
office of the petitioner, at that time, one Sam peter, accused
No.1 was present in his office and that the petitioner
introduced the said CW-9 to accused No.1.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner had informed Mr.Abdul
Sheriff that he could contact accused No.1 for any job or any
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
requirement, in furtherance of which the said accused No.1
had contacted CW-9 from time to time. On the basis of the
said statement, a charge sheet has been laid implicating the
petitioner as accused No.9. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid
reliefs.
5. Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel for the
petitioner would submit that a reading of the entire charge
sheet and/or the various witnesses' statement which have
been produced along with it would not in any manner
implicate the petitioner as regards the aforesaid offences
inasmuch as Section 170 and 171 relating to impersonation
of a public servant would not be applicable since there is no
allegation as against the petitioner for having impersonated
the public servant. Insofar as Section 399 and 402 of IPC,
he submits that there is no dacoity or preparation of dacoity
which is alleged against the petitioner. As regards the
offences under Section 419 and 420 of IPC, he submits that
no one has complained of the petitioner having induced
anybody or cheated anybody. There being no such
complaint against the petitioner, the question of invoking
offences under Section 419 and 420 of IPC would not arise.
As regards Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, he submits that
no arm has been seized or recovered from the petitioner to
attract any of those offences and as regards offence under
Section 7 of State Emblem of India Act, he submits that there
is no allegation against the petitioner to have made use of
any emblem in a manner contrary to that prescribed under
the State Emblem of India Act, 2005.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
6. He submits that the only reference which has been
made is as regards the petitioner knowing the said Sam
Peter. Knowing a person is not an offence, unless there is
any allegation which has been made of any offences having
been committed. On these grounds he submits that the
petition be allowed and proceedings be quashed.
7. Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP would submit that
the investigation having been completed and charge sheet
having been laid, the matter requires trial, at this stage this
Court ought no to intercede in the matter and the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner and Sri.Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP for
the respondent. Perused papers.
9. The allegations made against the petitioner have been
reproduced hereinabove, so also the arguments of Sri.
Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel. A reading of the
charge sheet and witness statement only indicates that the
petitioner was known to accused No.1-Sam Peter. The
allegations are against Sam Peter and certain others having
committed offences and or making preparations for
committing an offence. In respect of the said alleged
offences, a reading of the witnesses' statement, more
particularly that of CW-9 which has been relied upon to
implicate the petitioner does not indicate any particular
offence having been committed by the petitioner, not any
overt-tact having been committed by the petitioner. As
submitted by Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
none of the ingredients of the offences under Section 170,
171, 149, 420, 399 and 402 of IPC have been made out.
Hence, the question of invoking Section 120-B or 149 in
respect of the petitioner would not arise.
10. Furthermore, there is no material on record to
implicate the petitioner insofar the offences under Section 3
and 25 of the Arms Act and Section 7 of the State Emblem
Act has been placed on record. In view thereof, I am of the
considered view that insofar as the present complaint is
concerned as regards the aforesaid allegations, none of
those allegations having been established, hence the
question of continuing the criminal prosecution would not be
in the interest of justice. The matter would have been
different if there is any particular allegation made against the
petitioner for having cheated any person and/or being
involved in any of other offences being overt tact attributed to
the petitioner.
11. In view of the above, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petitioner is allowed.
ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.805/2020 pending
before the VI JMFC at Mangaluru insofar as the
petitioner is concerned is quashed.
iii. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed its opinion as regards the other
accused."
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
7. This Court in the case of Sri. H.H. Srimad
Raghavendra Theertha swamiji - Crl.P.No.8667/2019 dated
12.11.2020, quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused No.11
(in C.C.No.2537/2019) and held as under:
1. Sri Srinivas Rao S., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner seeks for two weeks' time to comply with the
office objections. He however requests for the matter to be
taken up for hearing pending compliance due to urgency.
2. The office objections are not coming in the way of
consideration of above matter. His request is acceded to and
the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Smt. Namitha Mahesh, learned HCGP accepts
notice for the respondents.
4. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for
quashing of the Charge-sheet and also the proceedings
insofar as petitioner is concerned in C.C.
No.2537/2019 registered for the offences under Sections
170, 171, 419, 120B, 399, 402 and 149 of the IPC and
Section 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Section 7
of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use)
Act, 2005, pending on the file of JMFC (IV Court), Bengaluru.
5. The 1st respondent police on 16.08.2019 at 5.00
p.m., registered a First Information Report in Crime
No.109/2019 based on the written information of the 2nd
respondent against the eight accused for the aforesaid
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
offences. The petitioner has initially not been arrayed as an
accused in the said crime. Subsequent thereto a raid was
conducted at a Lodge where accused No.1 was stated to be
sitting and many papers and documents including revolvers,
bullets, mobile phones were recovered during the said raid.
In the raid there was a complaint said to be lodged by the
petitioner/accused No.11 with accused No.1 which was
recovered.
6. The background of the case being that accused
No.1 and certain of the other accused had claimed to be
working with the National Crime Investigation Bureau. The
1st accused represented himself to be the Director of the
said Bureau and certain of the other accused claimed to be
working for the Bureau. They also had a Mahindra Car which
had a board with inscription 'Govt. of India, Director NCIB'. It
is alleged that the 1st accused and the other accused have
approached various people calling upon them to come up
with their grievances which could be resolved by them. On
receipt of the said grievances and complaints, the 1st
accused and others are alleged to have extracted money
from the complainant and from the persons against whom
complaint has been filed, as regards which respondent No.2
had received complaints and was being investigated.
7. Coming back to the documents seized during the
course of the raid, being a complaint filed by the petitioner
herein as the 1st accused the same is relating to certain
disputes in the Mutt of which the petitioner is the
Peethadipathi.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
8. Sri Srinivas Rao S., learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner genuinely and
bonafidly believing that, the 1st accused was in fact a
Director of the NCIB had submitted his complaint to the 1st
accused requiring Police Assistance and intervention in
investigation as also protection to the 1st petitioner. He
submits that reading of the entire complaint filed by the
petitioner would not indicate any offence by the petitioner
and/or request for commission of any offence by the 1st
accused. He further submits that at the most the petitioner
himself is a victim of the fraud played by the 1st accused and
his accomplishes and inasmuch as the petitioner has taken
the representation made by the 1st accused and submitted
his complaint for necessary action to be taken against the 1st
accused.
9. Sri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner
would further submit that in the above background it is not
required for the respondent to array the petitioner as
accused, since the entire investigation and the charge-sheet
laid would not indicate any allegations insofar as the
petitioner is concerned, except the complaint filed by the
petitioner - 11th accused with the 1st accused for resolution
of certain disputes and/or for protection.
10. In view of the above, he submits that the petitioner
also being targeted and charged for the offences that are
charged against the 1st accused, which is required to be
quashed.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
11. Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned HCGP for the
respondent-State submits that during the course of
investigation the letter was found and the charge sheet has
been laid on the basis of the investigation carried out,
therefore, the petitioner is required to stand trial and he
cannot seek for quashing of the proceedings.
12. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao S., learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned HCGP for
the respondent-State and perused the records.
13. A perusal of all papers indicate that, the only
allegation insofar as the petitioner-accused No.11 is
concerned, is a complaint said to be filed by the petitioner
with 1st accused requesting the 1st accused who had
claimed himself as the Director of the NCIB, to provide
protection to the petitioner, as also not to investigate into
various complaints and to await the judgment of the Court
where the dispute between the petitioner and other Officers
of the Mutt is pending.
14. A reading of the entire charge-sheet and of the
written complaint which have been recovered, does not
indicate any other allegations against the petitioner/accused
No.11, except what is stated above.
15. The Investigation Officer has arrayed the petitioner
as an accused. It may be that the petitioner has tried to seek
for the indulgence of the so called Director of the NCIB by
virtue of which a complaint alleging offences under Sections
170, 171, 419, 399, 402 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 3
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
and 25 of the Indian Arms Act can not be made out nor an
offence under Section 7 of the State Emblem of India
(Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 was involved.
16. The Investigation Officer ought not to have initiated
the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned but
ascertained who are accused and who are witnesses there.
At the most the petitioner could be a witness for the
prosecution and not an accused. On enquiry Sri Srinivas
Rao, learned counsel submits that if called upon, the
petitioner would present himself as a witness during the
course of trial against the accused.
17. Recording such a fair submission being made by
Sri Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the
proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned for the
aforesaid offences in C.C. No.2537/2019 pending on the file
of the JMFC (VI Court), Bengaluru, is hereby quashed."
8. This Court in the case of Mr. S.A.K. Abdul Lathief Vs.
The State of Karnataka and others - Crl.P.No.5654/2024 dated
03.12.2024, quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused No.7
(in C.C.No.S.C.No.86/2020) and held as under:
" The petitioner - accused No.7 is before this Court
calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.86/2020 for the
offences punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B,
399, 402 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Sections 3 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act and Sections 7 of
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use)
Act, 2005.
2. Heard H.S. Shankar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Harish Ganapathy,
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that qua accused Nos.8 and 9, against
whom graver allegations were made, have been quashed
by the coordinate benches of this Court.
4. In the light of such quashment, the offence
against accused No.7 would pale into insignificance is the
submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
5. A perusal at the order passed by the
coordinate bench, qua accused No.8 would be
undoubtedly enure to the benefit of the petitioner to quash
the proceedings on the same reason so rendered by the
coordinate bench.
6. The Learned HCGP would not dispute the
position in law, as is laid down by the coordinate bench in
Crl.R.P.No.140/2023 disposed on 23.08.2023. The
coordinate bench has held as follows.
"Revision petitioner, who is Accused No.8 in
S.C.No.86/2020 on the file of the learned IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.
Mangaluru, is impugning the order dated
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
08.11.2022, whereby the application filed under
Section 227 of Cr.P.C., praying to discharge him
for the offences punishable under Sections 170,
171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 420, 36 r/w
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'the IPC'), and under Sections 3 and 25 of the
Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 7 of
the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of
Improper Use) Act 2005, is rejected.
2. The parties are referred to as per their
ranking before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of
the suo motu FIR registered by Mangaluru East
Police the investigation was undertaken and the
charge sheet came to be filed for the above said
offences. The contention of the prosecution as
per the charge sheet is that a credible
information was received by the police that
accused No.1 was projecting himself as the
Director of National Crime Investigation Bureau
(for short 'the NCIB') and using the Car with the
Board and Emblem of the State to make believe
him as the Director of the National Investigation
Agency and was intending to extract money from
the general public. Accused No.9 even though
knew that accused No.1 is not a Government
Official, he joined hands with him to extract
money from one Girish Rai and Imtiaz promising
to pay 20% commission. In that regard, accused
Nos.1 and 9 have conspired together along with
accused Nos.10 and 11 by meeting in a Hotel at
Madiwala, Bengaluru. They have also conspired
to de-thrown the Pontiff of Kashimath and to
recover the amount from him, which he had
taken from Karnataka Bank Limited and also to
get a favourable order in favour of accused
No.11. Accused No.1 along with accused
Nos.12 to 14 conspired in the office of accused
No.1 and agreed to share the booty after
commission of the offence. Accused Nos.1, 9,
10 and 11 have conspired with accused Nos.12
have joined accused No.1 as his body guards
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
and took Mahendra TUV 300 Car with the Board
as Director NCIB with the Emblem of the Central
Investigation Agency and came to Mangaluru on
15.08.2019.
4. It is the specific contention of the
prosecution that it was accused Nos.7 and 8,
who booked the room for accused No.1 in Sai
Arya Lodge and on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m.
accused Nos. 1 to 8 have held a meeting in
Room No.201 of Sai Arya Lodge. Accused No.1
was armed with 4.5 pistol. Accused No.2 was
having revolver with 8 live bullets and they
conspired with accused Nos.9, 10 and 11 and
they made preparation to commit dacoit. It was
accused Nos.1 and 12 to 14 with an intention to
cheat the general public by projecting accused
No.1 as the Director of the Central Investigation
Agency tried to extract and gulp the money and
thereby they have committed the offences as
stated above.
5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence and the accused Nos.8 and 13 appeared
before the trial Court in response to the
summons and filed their application under
Section 227 of Cr.P.C. praying for their
discharge. The Trial Court after considering the
materials on record passed the impugned order
dated 08.11.2022 dismissing the said
application. Being aggrieved by the same,
accused No.8 is before this Court.
6. Heard Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi,
learned HCGP for the respondent. Perused the
entire material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contented
that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.8.
The only allegation made against accused No.8
is that he booked Room No.201 in Sai Arya
Lodge, Mangaluru, for the stay of accused No.1
and he held a meeting with him. But the
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
statement of CWs.4 and 5, who are the owners
of the Sai Arya Lodge in question have referred
to accused No.7 as the person, who called them
to book the room for accused No.1 referring him
to be the Director of NCIB. They never referred
to the name of accused No.8 that he booked the
room for accused No.1. The statement of
CWs.4 and 5 is to the effect that in the evening
accused No.8 had accompanied accused No.7
and met accused No.1 in the room. If the said
contention of the prosecution is accepted as it is,
none of the penal provisions invoked by the
prosecution would stand the test of the trial and
they have no prima facie material against the
accused No.8. Therefore, accused No.8, who is
the petitioner herein is to be discharged.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that
accused No.9 had approached this Court by
filing W.P.No.51866/2019 (GM-RES), which
came to be allowed vide order dated 03.08.2022
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and
criminal proceedings against him was quashed.
Similarly accused No.11 approached this Court
by filing Crl.P.No.8667/2019, which also came to
be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 12.11.2020 quashing the
criminal proceedings against him. Under such
circumstances, the petitioner against whom
there is absolutely nothing on record to invoke
any of the penal provisions is entitled for
discharge. Accordingly he prays for allowing this
criminal revision petition and to set aside the
impugned order passed by the trial Court.
9. Per contra, Sri Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP
opposing the petition submitted that the
allegations made against accused Nos.1 to 15 is
of serious nature. On credible information the
Police came to know that accused No.1
conspired with other accused and camped in
'(Mangaluru)', Room No.201 of Sai Arya Lodge
'(Mangaluru)' and this petitioner along with
accused No.7 booked the room for his stay and
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
also arranged meetings with the other accused.
It is nothing but a conspiracy between one
another and therefore, the petitioner is also one
of the party to the conspiracy and is liable to be
tried. It is premature to form an opinion that
there are no materials against the petitioner and
therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the
application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.
10. In view of the rival contentions urged by
learned counsel for both the parties, the point
that would arise for my consideration is :
"Whether the impugned order passed by the
trial Court suffers from infirmity and perversity
and calls for interference by this Court.?"
My answer to the above point is in the
'affirmative' for the following :
REASONS
11. The specific contention of the
prosecution as per the charge sheet is that the
accused conspired together and accused No.1
armed with revolver projected himself as the
Director of NCIB arranged the Car with the
Board and Emblem to suit the said designation,
accompanied by accused Nos. 2 to 6 as his
body guards and conspired with accused Nos.9
to 15 to extract money from the general public.
The specific allegation made against the
petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.8 is
that he along with accused No.7 booked Room
No.201 at Sai Arya Lodge for the stay of
Accused No.1 and on 16.08.2019 he met
accused No.1 along with accused No.7 and
participated in the meeting that was held in the
said room.
12. My attention was drawn to the statements
of CWs.4 and 5, who are said to be the owners
of Sai Arya Lodge. The witnesses specifically
state that it was accused No.7, who called and
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
requested to book a Room for the Director of
NCIB i.e, accused No.1 and on the basis of such
request they booked the room. Thereafter,
accused No.1 along with other accused came
there. This petitioner, who is arrayed as
accused No.8 came to the said Sai Arya Lodge
on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. and participated in
the meeting that was held by accused Nos.1 to
8. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution
that it was this petitioner, who booked the room
does not find any support in the charge sheet
materials. As a result, the only allegation that
remains against the petitioner is that he met
accused No.1 in Room No.201 of Sai Arya
Lodge on 16.08.2019 at 5.00 p.m. and was
present in the meeting. If this contention of the
prosecution is to be accepted as it is, none of
the penal provisions invoked by the Investigating
Officer could be made applicable against the
petitioner.
13. It is also to be noted that even in
the voluntary statement of accused No.1, he
refers to accused No.7 with whom he requested
to get a room booked in Mangaluru and does not
refer to accused No.8. Accused No.1 in his
voluntary statement only states that accused
No.8 had accompanied accused No.7 and
visited him in Mangaluru. When no semblance
of commission of offence goes against the
petitioner, except saying that he met accused
No.1 in the Hotel Room, I am of the opinion, that
there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding
against the petitioner/accused No.8 for any of
the above provisions. Under such
circumstances, he is entitled for discharge.
14. I have gone through the
impugned order passed by the trial Court. It has
not considered the materials on record against
the present petitioner to form an opinion that
there are prima facie materials against the
petitioner to constitute any of the offences. Even
if the allegations made in the charge sheet are to
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
be accepted as it is, none of the penal provisions
could be invoked and there are no sufficient
grounds to proceed against the
petitioner/accused No.8.
15. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to the pass the following
:-
ORDER
i) The revision petition is allowed.
ii) Criminal proceedings initiated against
accused No.8 in S.C.No.86/2020 for the offence
punishable under punishable under Sections
170, 171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 420, 36 r/w
Section 149 of IPC, and under Sections 3 and
25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under
Section 7 of the State Emblem of India
(Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, is
quashed.
iii) Petitioner/Accused No.8 is discharged for the
above said offences."
In the light of the order passed by the coordinate
bench as quoted hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to
dispose of this petition by passing the following:
ORDER
01. Criminal petition is allowed.
02. Criminal proceedings initiated against
accused No.7 in S.C.No.86/2020 for the offence
punishable under Sections 170, 171, 419, 120B, 399, 402
r/w Section 149 of the IPC, and under Sections 3 and 25
of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 7 of the
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5936
State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act,
2005, stands quashed."
9. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that
proceedings as against accused Nos.8, 9, 11 and 7 have been
quashed by the aforesaid orders of Co-ordinate Benches of this
Court and consequently, by applying the doctrine of parity,
proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.13 in this petition
also deserves to be quashed.
10. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.86/2020 arising out of FIR in
Crime No.109/2019 registered by the 1st respondent - Police,
pending on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 170,
171, 419, 120B, 109, 399, 402, 36 r/w. Section 149 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 7 of the State
Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 and
Section 2(H) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, insofar as the
petitioner-accused No.13 is concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
