[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
R Suresh @ Tavaka vs State Of Karnataka on 6 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7484
CRL.P No. 15462 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15462 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
R.SURESH @ TAVAKA,
S/O RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO.415,
RAJARAJESWARINAGAR,
D.M. PUBLIC SCHOOL, LAGGERE,
BENGALURU, PIN- 560 058.
(AS PER AADHAR CARD)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHU N.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
SANJEEVINI J 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARISHETTY
Location:
BY RAJAGOPALNAGARA POLICE STATION,
High Court of BENGALURU,
Karnataka
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 01.
2. SRI. V.J.MITHUN SHILPI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
PSI, RAJAGOPAL NAGARA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7484
CRL.P No. 15462 of 2025
HC-KAR
PIN - 560 058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO. 12539/2018 ON THE
FILE OF VII ADDL. C.M.M AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 399, 402 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner - accused No.7, is before this Court
challenging the continuance of proceeding in
C.C.No.12539/2018 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri. Raghu N.R, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP
appearing for the respondent-State and have perused the
material on record.
NC: 2026:KHC:7484
HC-KAR
3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime along with
other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 399
and 402 of the IPC. The petitioner at relevant point in time was
not available for trial. The other accused have been tried and
the concerned Court by its order dated 17.12.2024 acquits the
other accused on the score that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Since the
offence is of commission of dacoity under Sections 399 and 402
of the IPC, the reason so rendered by the concerned Court
would become applicable to the petitioner as well.
4. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the
judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Crl.P.4796/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench while
considering an identical set of facts has held as follows:
"12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing
for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that
petitioner/accused was never traced and non-bailable
warrant issued against him was never executed. Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION vs AKHILESH SINGH reported in
AIR 2005 SCC 268 has held quashing of charge and
order discharging co-accused can be passed, if the
proceedings initiated against co-accused is on
similar allegations and if said judgment had
NC: 2026:KHC:7484
HC-KAR
reached finality. It is also held that discharge of a
co-accused by the High Court by holding that no
purpose would be served in further proceeding with
the case, is just and proper. In another ruling in
MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551 this Court has held as
under:
"The petitioner is the accused in the case and he
is shown to be the absconding. Therefore, the
case against the petitioner was split up and
charge-sheet was laid against other available
accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence
punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC
r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial,
the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1
to 3. The petitioner was arrested and
proceedings were revived against him in the split
charge sheet.... In the instant case also, the full
pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to
3, in respect of the same offence. In the second
round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence
to be produced cannot be different from the one
that was produced by the prosecution in the
earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the
matter, the proceeding is quashed."
13. Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR
2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following
effect:
"As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a
pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer
pending nor he can close the case as he has to await
appearance of the accused or the production by the
State, for passing orders regarding undergoing
sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts
and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
instead of jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C. in
the interest of justice. As the entire material
evidence of the prosecutions is one and the
same, as against all the accused including the
non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be
absconding, there is no second opinion that he is
also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as he
is extended for his co-accused. Accused
acquitted by giving benefit of doubt."
NC: 2026:KHC:7484
HC-KAR
14. In this background, when the facts on
hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that
not only complainant but also other witnesses
including the inmates of ambulance in which they
were travelling on the date of incident, had turned
hostile in the proceedings which was continued
against co-accused. Though, P.W.1 - complainant had
admitted that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1
and had also admitted that he has given a statement
identifying the accused before the Investigation Officer,
he did not identify the accused persons present before
Court. In fact, statements given by him as per Exs.P-2 to
P-4 when confronted, he denied the same and had also
denied the suggestion put by the public prosecutor that
he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as
false. P.W.2 to P.W.8 had not identified the accused
persons present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court.
In fact, they have not even identified the statements
made by them before the Investigating Officer and
nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross-
examination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, taking
into consideration said evidence available on record
Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that
evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution
would not come to their assistance. In fact,
witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P-40, who were
examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have also turned
hostile and they have stated that police had called them a
year back to the police station and when they went to the
police station, they had not seen any accused persons in
police station. However, they admit police having taken
their signatures on the papers and contents of it were not
known to them.
15. It is in this background, trial Court on
appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the
accused persons by holding that prosecution had
failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons
beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients
of provisions of the offence alleged against them.
In fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was
certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada
district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to
please on community of people, the Investigating
Officer might have falsely implicated the accused
NC: 2026:KHC:7484
HC-KAR
persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be
received from the public or other community people
and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this
background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in
the present petition is examined, it can be noticed
that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed
against the petitioner is similar, identical and in
fact, it is replica of charge made against accused
Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33, who15 were tried in
S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had
been acquitted.
16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of
the firm view that judgment rendered by trial Court
insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25
to 33 is similar and identical to the charge made
against the present petitioner. This Court does not
find any independent or separate material having
been placed by the prosecution against present
petitioner to put him on trial once again and
directing the petitioner-accused to undergo the
order of trial, which ultimately would fetch same
result as that of accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33.
When allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 23
and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made
against present petitioner, it has to be necessarily
held that they are identical, similar and inseparable
in nature and no independent decision can be taken
against the present petitioner. Therefore, no
purpose would be served even if the present
petitioner is ordered to be tried by the trial Court.
17. In view of the afore stated facts and the
law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would
emerge that there would be no harm or injustice
that would be caused to prosecution if benefit of
acquittal order is passed in favour of accused -
petitioner, since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33
against whom similar allegation had been made is
already acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri.
Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State
that petitioner should not be extended said benefit,
since he is an absconder, by relying upon judgment
of Coordinate Bench this Court is not inclined to
accept said contention for single reason that said
NC: 2026:KHC:7484
HC-KAR
judgment had been rendered based on the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK
RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in
(2007) 15 SCC 305 where under Apex Court after
noticing the facts obtained in the said case, had
held that benefit of acquittal, should be extended to
the appellant, since co-accused had been acquitted
and held that a departure can be made in cases
where accused has not surrendered "after
conviction" in addition to not filing an appeal
against the conviction. As such, noticing earlier
position of law laid down it was held by the Apex
Court that in case of acquittal of a accused for
same offence on same set of facts and on similar
accusations, if considered, it would entile for
acquittal of co-accused also.
18. In that view of the matter, present
proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be
quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on
the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal,
in Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal
Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed
insofar petitioner is concerned.
In view of criminal petition having been disposed of on
merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for
consideration and same stands rejected."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Co-ordinate Bench was considering a case where the
co-accused who had escaped trial had not surrendered or was
not arrested by the police.
NC: 2026:KHC:7484
HC-KAR
5. In the light of there being no evidence against any
of the accused, the split up charge against the petitioner being
tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would become an
exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no evidence or a
specific charge against this petitioner, that was not charged
against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the
proceedings against the petitioner.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
[I] Criminal Petition is allowed.
[II] Proceedings in C.C.No.12539/2018 pending before
the XXXI Addl. C.J.M at Bangalore, qua the
petitioner, stands quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
CBC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54
