Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 146 (KAR)

Khalid v. State of Karnataka

2012-02-23

V.SURI APPA RAO

body2012
Judgment : V. Suri Appa Rao, J: 1. This petition is filed to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.1464/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) & JMFC, Puttur. 2. The petitioner is accused No.3 in the above case, other accused No.1, 2 and 4 who are charged for the offences punishable U/s. 447, 326, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that, there was dispute with regard to connection of water tap between the complainant and the accused persons. It is further alleged that, on 11.11.1999, when the complainant was in his land doing agricultural work, other accused persons trespassed into the land along with deadly weapons and assaulted one Phakeerabba-PW.2. Immediately, PW-2 has been shifted to the Government hospital for treatment and the police registered the case in Crime No.81/1999. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, Puttur police filed the charge sheet against all the accused persons in CC No. 109/2000. As the petitioner was found absconding, case against the petitioner was split up in CC No.1464/2003. 3. During the trial, complainant as well as the injured-PW.2, Phakeerabba did not support the case of prosecution therefore Accused No. 1, 2 and 4 were found not guilty of the offences for which they were charges. Hence, the learned Magistrate recorded the order of acquittal against accused No.1, 2 and 4. 4. Petitioner who is accused No.3 has filed this petition to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that, no useful purpose would be served, if the case is proceeded against him and that he was not aware of the registration of the case against him and at the time of alleged offence, he was residing at Dubai and on coming to know about acquittal of other accused, he has filed this petition to quash the entire proceedings against him. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, no summons was served against the petitioner and he was not aware above the case registered against him. The complainant and the petitioner and other accused persons were closely related to each other and due to the family dispute, the petitioner is falsely implicated in the crime, even though, he was residing in Dubai at the time of the alleged offence. The complainant and the petitioner and other accused persons were closely related to each other and due to the family dispute, the petitioner is falsely implicated in the crime, even though, he was residing in Dubai at the time of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the complainant and the injured PW.2 did not attribute any overt acts against the petitioner and other accused No.1, 2 and 4 who faced trial before the Trial Court and were acquitted. Therefore, the case in CC No. 1464/2003 separated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that, petitioner is aware about the proceedings. In view pendency of non–bailable Warrant against the petitioner the case was treated as long pending case and further steps were taken for proclamation and that NBW pending against the petitioner was returned with an endorsement that the petitioner is residing in foreign country. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2002(6) Supreme 273 , State of Gujarath Vs. Vakar Ahmed Abdul Hamid Sheikh & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that, “where one accused was acquitted, subsequently in separate trial on same evidence, co-accused cannot be convicted.” 8. Relying on the above decision, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, no useful purpose would be served, if the case is proceeded against the petitioner, when the complainant himself did not support the prosecution case and no overt act is attributed against the petitioner and other accused persons, therefore, the proceedings in CC No. 1464/2003 on the file of JMFC, Puttur is liable to be quashed. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance in the case of Shekappa alias Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Karnataka through PSI, Bilagi Police Station, ( 2010 (4) KCCR 3181 ), wherein this Court has held that, “when the eyewitnesses to the incident turned hostile and the accused were acquitted, benefit of acquittal granted to the co-accused has to be extended to absconding accused also in absence of evidence. Therefore, criminal proceedings pending against the absconding accused is liable to quashed.” 10. In another case ( 2011 (1) KCCR 646 ) Devaraju Vs. Therefore, criminal proceedings pending against the absconding accused is liable to quashed.” 10. In another case ( 2011 (1) KCCR 646 ) Devaraju Vs. State of Karnataka, this Court held that, “in the light of the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court following the complainant and other witnesses turning hostile, no purpose in the case being proceeded with as against the other accused”, therefore, the proceedings in question are liable to be quashed U/s. 482 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. 11. Admittedly, in the instant case, PW.2 who is stated to have sustained injuries has stated in his evidence that, he did not know about the person who assaulted him. The other eyewitnesses to the alleged incident also did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal against accused No.1, 2 and 4 who faced trial before the Trial Court. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, petitioner is not aware about the criminal case registered against him as he was residing in Dubai on the date of the alleged offence and since the other co-accused were acquitted on the basis of the evidence of the injured witnesses and complainant, the proceedings against the petitioner is also liable to be quashed. 13. When the complainant and the injured-PW.2 has not stated about the presence and participation of this petitioner in the commission of the offence before the Trial Court, even if the case against the petitioner is proceeded, the evidence to be produced by the prosecution cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case against other accused. There fore, in that view of the matter, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 14. The petition is therefore allowed and the proceedings in CC No.1464/2003 on the file of the Civil judge, (Senior Division) & JMFC, Puttur are hereby quashed.