IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. No. 451/2016 BETWEEN MR. LAKSHMANA, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT. MANCHAPPANHALLI, BUDIGERE POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 129 ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. M. V. TANUJA, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION, CHIKKAJALA-562 157.
2. SRI. K. C. GOVINDARAJU, R/AT KARADAGANALA VILLAGE, TUBAGERE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK – 561 203.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
NOTICE TO R-2 D/W V.O.D. 27.11.17) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., DEVANAHALLI IN S.C.NO.15025/2015 AGAINST THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION A/W IA NO.1/2016 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in SC No.15025/2015 registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the trial court viz., V-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. Learned HCGP submits that no appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by the Trial Court in S.C. No.308/2012.
4. The brief factual matrix of the case are that, Respondent No.1-Police have laid charge sheet against three accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC, alleging that Accused No.1 by name C.N. Muninarayana has got some grievance against the deceased Lakshminarayana in respect of some property dispute and Accused No.1 has decided to do-away with the life of the said Lakshminarayana and he conspired with Accused Nos.2 & 3. On the basis of such conspiracy, Accused No.1 has brought the deceased to his house situated at Bettahalasur and thereafter, Accused Nos.1 to 3 have strangulated the neck of the deceased with the help of a rope and committed murder of the said person. On the above said allegations, the committal court had committed the case to the Court of Sessions originally and a Sessions Case has been registered in S.C. No.308/2012. The petitioner in this petition was arraigned as Accused No.3 in the said sessions case. Due to the abscondance of Accused No.3, the case was split-up from the original case and Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were tried by the learned Sessions Judge in the original case viz., SC No.308/2012. After framing of charges against Accused Nos. 1 & 2, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P47 and Material Objections 1 to 14 and also marked Exs. D1 & D2.
5. In the said case, after thorough examination of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court came to a conclusion that, the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is stated by the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution was not able to prove the chain of circumstances to connect Accused Nos. 1 & 2 with the alleged guilt and therefore, the trial Court has acquitted the accused persons.
6. As I have already narrated, the factual aspects of this particular case are not individual, separate and distinct. The allegations are made against Accused No.3 are not distinct in nature compared to the allegations made against Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and common allegations are made against Accused Nos. 1 to 3, more particularly, Accused No.1 has got motive and grievance against the deceased and who took the deceased to Accused Nos. 2 & 3 for committing murder of the deceased. When the main Accused No.1 and another accused viz. Accused No.2, who stand on the same footing as that of Accused No.3, have already been acquitted, the benefit of the said acquittal judgment requires to be extended sofar as this petitioner is concerned.
7. In this background, it is worth to refer to an unreported the decision of this court in SAIBANNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200008/2015 DATED 23.01.2015 by referring the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in ILR 2015 KAR Page 970 [HYDER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA], AIR 2005 SCC 268 [CBI VS. AKHILESH SINGH] and 2002(1) KCCR 1 [ MUNEER AHMED QURESHI, MUNEER @ GAUN MUNEER VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT POLICE, in order to ascertain whether this court can quash the proceedings against the co-accused, when the other accused have already been acquitted. In this regard, in a decision reported in Criminal Petition No.4796/2017 dated 05.07.2017, this Court has extensively relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, particularly in the decisions reported in (2001) 3 Kant.L.J. 551 [MOHAMMED ILIAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA] and ILR 2005 KAR. 1822 [THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.C.
NARASEGOWDA]. Therefore, before adverting to the factual aspects of this case, it is worth to refer the decision in the case of Akhilesh Singh (supra), wherein, it was held that:
“Quashing of charge and discharge of the accused when an accused who alleged to have hatched conspiracy and who had motive to kill the deceased were already discharged, that matter had attained finality, the discharge of co-accused by High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with case against co- accused held proper.”
In Muneer Ahmed Qureshi’s case (supra), this Court has held that: -
“Entire case of the prosecution as against six accused is practically inseparable and individual one and especially when the Judgment of acquittal is passed, when P.W.1 denies the entire incident or the role of the accused. This reasoning of acquittal would also definitely enure to the petitioner. Even if the petitioner is tried there cannot be any other material other than what is already produced and considered by Trial Court. In such circumstances it will be an exercise in futility to make the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of crime, and then to be acquitted.
Holding that the proceeding against the accused person who was absconding and subsequently against whom a split up charge sheet was filed was quashed.”
8. In the above said background, when the factual aspects are inter-twined and not distinguishable from the other accused persons, who were already acquitted of the offences alleged and the petitioner, who is the co-accused, who has been absconding, then the same benefit has to be extended to him also.
9. In the above circumstances, if the said proceedings in SC No.15025/2015 is allowed to be continued, it would amount to abuse of process of law and it is sheer waste of judicial time. Hence, the said proceedings is liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in SC No.15025/2015 registered against the petitioner/accused No.3 – Lakshmana, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) r/w. 34 of IPC, pending on the file of V- Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Devanahalli, in sofar as this petitioner (A3) concerned, is quashed.
In view of disposal of this case, the application-IA No.1/2016 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the said application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*