Karnataka High Court
Manja @ Manjunath vs The State Of Akrnataka on 11 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36105
CRL.P No. 12956 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12956 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. MANJA
@ MANJUNATH
S/O PEDDANNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT KALYANAPURA VILLAGE
SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
( NOW IN J.C) PIN - 562 120.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.N. RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MAGADI POLICE
Digitally signed
by AL BHAGYA 2. SANJEEVEGOWDA .H.B
Location: HIGH S/O H.S. BASAVARAJAIAH
COURT OF P.S.I, MAGADI POLICE STATION
KARNATAKA
R1 AND R2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36105
CRL.P No. 12956 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.28/2025, ON THE FILE OF LEARNED 1ST ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL.JUDGE, RAMANAGARA
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399, 402 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, arrayed as Accused No.5 in S.C.
No.28/2025 on the file of the learned I Additional District
and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Ramanagara, has
approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the criminal
proceedings initiated against him for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has invited the attention of this Court to the judgment
rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.
No.6/2010. It is pointed out that the other co-accused,
NC: 2025:KHC:36105
HC-KAR
who were tried for identical charges arising out of the
same incident and on the basis of the very same set of
evidence, were acquitted by judgment and order dated
12.11.2013. It is contended that the substratum of the
prosecution case having collapsed in the earlier trial, there
is no independent or substantive material left on record to
warrant continuation of proceedings against the present
petitioner. Relying upon the said judgment of acquittal, as
well as the view expressed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in matters of a similar nature, learned counsel
submits that the continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioner would be a sheer abuse of the
process of law and would cause grave prejudice to the
petitioner, who is presently in judicial custody.
3. Having considered the submissions and upon
perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds
that the prosecution case against the petitioner is entirely
founded upon the same allegations and evidence which
were the subject-matter of adjudication in S.C.No.6/2010.
NC: 2025:KHC:36105
HC-KAR
This Court deems it fit to extract the relevant paragraphs
of the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in
S.C.No.6/2010. The same is extracted as under:
"11. Point No.1:- I have briefly stated the case of
the prosecution. I have perused the evidence of PW.1 to
3 and Ex.P1 to P4 in detail. PW.1 Chandrabansingh is the
seizure mahazar witness. PW.1 has deposed that he has
not seen the accused. However this witness has admitted
his signature on Ex.P1 mahazar. PW.1 has clearly
deposed that the police have not seized the iron rod,
machu and other articles from the possession of the
accused persons at Magadi-Gudemaranahalli road and
the police have not recorded his statement. Therefore
from the evidence of PW.1 it is clear that nothing was
recovered from the possession of the accused persons
and no mahazar was drawn in the presence of this
witness. As this witness is deposing against the case of
the prosecution, this witness has been treated as hostile
and the learned public prosecutor was permitted to cross
examine this witness. Even in the cross-examination,
this witness denied all the suggestions made by the
learned public prosecutor. PW.2 has deposed in his
examination in chief that he was working as Magadi
C.P.I. from 3.5.2007 to 2.6.2010. PW.2 has deposed that
he received telephone message on 5/6.4.2008 at 4.30
a.m, he went to a road near Thimmasandra gate on
Magadi-Gudemaranahalli road and found one tata sumo
vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-02-MB-0141 parked and one
and two persons standing infront of the tata sumo
vehicle and three persons sitting on the vehicle and one
person was standing infront of tata sumo vehicle was
holding a knife and another person was holding a iron
rod and he found choppers and clubs in tata sumo
vehicle and he was able to apprehend 4 persons and one
person by name Manja @ Manjunatha ran away and he
arrested those four persons and conducted mahazar and
seized the said vehicle and he has produced those
accused No.1 to 4 before the Court on 6.4.2008 and a
case was registered in Magadi police station crime
No.73/2008. In the cross-examination PW.2 has deposed
that he does not know who was the S.H.O. on that day.
NC: 2025:KHC:36105
HC-KAR
PW.2 has admitted that he has not produced any
document to show that he was on night rounds on that
day. PW2 has clearly admitted that he has not enquired
the owner of tata sumo and he has not obtained the
statement of the owner of the tata sumo vehicle. PW.2
has clearly admitted that during the course of
investigation no witnesses have made statement to the
effect that the accused persons have threatened by
holding deadly weapons. On careful perusal of the entire
cross-examination of PW.2, it creates a shadow of doubt
regarding the very presence of the accused and
muchless the very commission of the alleged offences by
these accused persons. PW.3 is mahazar witness
(Ex.P1). PW.3 has clearly deposed that police have not
arrested the accused persons who are before the Court
and they have not conducted mahazar and they have not
seized MO.1 to 4 in his presence. PW.3 has also deposed
that he has never seen the accused persons. Therefore
this witness has also been treated as hostile witness and
learned public prosecutor was permitted to cross-
examine this witness. In the cross-examination PW.3 has
stoutly denied all the suggestions made by the learned
P.P. In view of the evidence of PW.1 to 3, the learned
P.P. has closed evidence on the side of the prosecution.
On over all perusal of the evidence of PW.1 to 3 and
other material placed on record it is crystal clear that
there are no incriminating circumstances against the
accused persons. The prosecution has utterly failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt. Hence this is a fit case to acquit the accused
persons due to lack of evidence."
4. Since the co-accused were acquitted on merits
after a full-fledged trial, and no fresh or independent
material is forthcoming to implicate the petitioner, the
very foundation of the prosecution stands eroded. In such
circumstances, continuation of the proceedings in S.C.
NC: 2025:KHC:36105
HC-KAR
No.28/2025 against the petitioner would serve no useful
purpose and would amount to perpetuating abuse of the
process of the Court.
5. In exercise of its inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is
therefore of the considered opinion that the ends of justice
would be met by quashing the proceedings pending
against the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed;
(ii) The proceedings pending in
S.C.No.28/2025 on the file of the learned 1st
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special
Judge, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable
under Sections 399, 402 of IPC, insofar as
petitioner is concerned, are quashed;
NC: 2025:KHC:36105
HC-KAR
(iii) The Jail Superintendent, District
Prison, Ramanagara, is hereby directed to
release the petitioner forthwith, if he is not
required to be detained in any other case.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
