Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2142 (KAR)

Abhinandan A R v. State Of Karnataka

2020-11-02

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in S.C.No.2037/2018 pending on the file of LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. 2. Crime No.61/2015 had been registered against the petitioner and four other persons for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. Since accused No.1 was a juvenile and accused No.3 and 5 were absconding, Sessions Court directed for splitting up of the charge sheet and proceedings were conducted only against accused Nos.2 and 4. After holding full-fledged trial, the Sessions Court was pleased to acquit accused Nos.2 and 4 of the said offences in S.C.No.1115/2016 on the ground that the prosecution has been unable to prove the case as against accused Nos.2 and 4. 3. Petitioner-Accused No.3 is before this Court contending that once the proceedings as against accused Nos.2 and 4 had been completed and said accused Nos.2 and 4 had been acquitted on merits of the matter and the Sessions Court has categorically held that there is no offence made out against them and there being no allegation insofar as petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned, benefit of said acquittal is to be passed on to the accused No.3-petitioner herein. Hence, the proceedings initiated against petitioner-accused No.3 in S.C.No.2037/2018 are required to be quashed. 4. Sri.V.S.Vinayaka, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent submits that insofar as petitioneraccused No.3 concerned, a wooden stick which was proposed to be used for committal of the offence was seized from the possession of the petitioner and to that effect, there is a deposition of PW-4. He submits that the proceedings ought to continue insofar as petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned. 5. On enquiry, learned HCGP submits that the State has not filed any appeal insofar as judgment passed in S.C.No.1115/2016. 6. He submits that the proceedings ought to continue insofar as petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned. 5. On enquiry, learned HCGP submits that the State has not filed any appeal insofar as judgment passed in S.C.No.1115/2016. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent, I am of the considered opinion that the accused No.5 was absconding and the proceedings against accused No.1 had been dropped on account of he being a juvenile, insofar as accused Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, on merits of the matter, the Sessions Court came to a categorical conclusion that there is no offence made out against them and there being no separate allegations made against the petitioner-accused No.3 in S.C.No.1115/2016 and merely because a wooden stick was seized from accused No.3, the same would not require a trial to be held insofar as the said accused No.3-petitioner is concerned when it would be the very same witness who would lead evidence and prosecution would again fail to make out a case against the petitioner - accused No.3. 7. In view of the same, once the order has been passed on merit, the same order would enure to the benefit of the petitioner also. More so, in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Hassan @ Mohammed Hassan v- The State of Karnataka passed in W.P.55102/2017 DD 14.12.2017, more particularly paragraph 12 thereof. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v- Akhilesh Singh, (2005) AIR SC 268 (para 13) and in the case of Muneer Ahmed Qureshi, Muneer @ Gaun Muneer v- State of Karnataka by Kumarswamy Layout Police, 2002 1 KCCR 1 (para 14). 8. Applying the said dicta to the present case, the proceedings as against petitioner-accused No.3 cannot also be continued for the very same reason. 9. In view thereof, petition is allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.2037/2018 pending on the file of LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC are quashed.