IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2759 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Jaffer, S/o Ariff, Aged about 25 years, R/at No.3842/4, 1st Cross, C.V. Road, 2nd EDGA, Mysuru City – 570 001. … PETITIONER (By Sri Santhosh Kumar M.B., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (By Smt. K.P. Yashodha, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in S.C. No.72/2016 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru by allowing this petition.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Heard Sri.Santhosh Kumar.M.B, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri.K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP for the State.
2. F.I.R.No.435/2014 was registered against petitioner and seven others on 16.09.2014 in Madanayakanahally Police Station, Bengaluru district for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 143, 145, 147, 149, 307 and 324 of IPC. After investigation, Police filed chargesheet against eight accused in S.C.No.95/2015 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. Petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court. Hence, a split up chargesheet was filed and trial was completed against remaining accused. During the pendency of trial, Accused No.1 passed away. After a full-fledged trial, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District has acquitted remaining six accused by recording thus:
“As already noted, the complainant could not be examined as he passed away before the trial could take place. The other important witnesses are P.W.2, stated to be an eyewitness, who has completely turned hostile and P.W.4 is a circumstantial witness, who has also turned hostile. Under such circumstances, merely on the say of P.W.1, that C.W.1 had given statement as per Ex.P.1, the prosecution will not be able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused. Significantly, even though C.W.1 had died subsequently, it was not on account of the injuries suffered during the incident and therefore, Ex.P.1 does not acquire the status of dying declaration.
Taking into consideration the materials placed on record, I am of the view that there is absolutely no material whatsoever to connect the accused with the alleged offences. Accordingly, I am constrained to answer Points 1 to 4 in the negative.”
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that since complainant had passed away, petitioner was under bonafide belief that further proceeding was closed. Hence, he did not appear before the Trial Court. He further submitted that since all other accused have been acquitted by the Trial Court, criminal proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the split up chargesheet may be quashed.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his usual fairness does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned advocates on both sides and perused the records.
6. By Judgment dated 4th April 2017 in S.C.No.95/2015, learned Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru has acquitted Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 143, 145, 147, 149, 307 and 324 of IPC. Accused No.7 is dead.
7. This Court has taken a consistent view that when the co-accused have been acquitted, no useful purpose would be served to continue the proceedings against remaining accused when charges against all accused are the same. [See, Ashraf K.S. Vs. The State (Crl.P.No.3809/2017 decided on 12.06.2018)].
8. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration.
Accordingly, it is allowed. All proceedings in S.C.No.95/2015 (arising out of F.I.R.No.435/2014) pending on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, are quashed, so far as petitioner is concerned.
9. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is also disposed of.
No costs.
bnv Sd/- JUDGE