IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2229 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Swamy, S/o Hanumegowda, Aged about 30 years, Residing at Mallinathapura Village, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore-571107.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Raju.C.N., Advocate) AND:
1. State by Periyapatna Police Station, Mysore District.
2. C.Raju, ASI, Periyapatna Police, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore-571107.
…Respondents (By Sri. S.Rachaiah, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Cr.No193/2008 of Periyapatna Police in C.C.No.804/2015 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna, Mysore by allowing this petition.
This criminal petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard Sri.C.N.Raju, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State. By order of even date, petition has been dismissed against respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.1 in CC.No.804/2015 (Crime No.193/2008) is seeking for quashing of said proceeding.
3. Case of prosecution is that on 15.10.2008 at about 9.00 a.m, tobacco growers/farmers participated in an auction process of Tobacco bales and at about 9.30 a.m at platform No.5 100 bales were being auctioned and at that time, growers representatives had obstructed the auction proceedings and had abused the Tobacco Board officials in foul language and had insisted for payment of higher price for Tobacco that was being auctioned. It was also alleged that auction superintendent intervened and explained market mechanism to the growers but they did not accept the same and also provoked other growers and stopped auction proceedings in other platform Nos.4, 5 and 6 also. Subsequently, when the auction came to be resumed and discussion was in progress, same persons had provoked and man handled the officials by throwing the tobacco samples. After intervention of the Police, the situation came to control. While the situation was being brought under control by CW1-Head Constable, about 100 to 150 formers again re-assembled at the place of auction, obstructed auction proceedings. It is further alleged at that time, petitioner and other accused persons have demanded the Tobacco Board officials to provide Rs.39 for one bale of tobacco and have abused the Police for supporting tobacco officials and also assaulted the Head Constable, C.H.Kumara-CW1 by use of their hands and had torn his uniform. Accordingly, complaint came to be lodged against the accused persons in Crime No.193/2008 by CW1 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 353 and 352 read with Section 149 of IPC.
4. As per the report of jurisdictional Police, petitioner (accused No.1) was absconding and as such split-up charge sheet came to be filed against petitioner in C.C.No.804/2015. However, trial proceeded against other accused persons in C.C.No.123/2009. In the light of accused persons not pleading guilty, trial came to be conducted by the jurisdictional magistrate, who found that prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in the background of the prosecution witnesses having turned hostile. Hence, accused Nos.4 to 14 came to be acquitted for the offences they were charged and during pendency of the proceedings accused No.2 and 3 had expired and proceedings against them abated.
5. In the light of split charge sheet having been filed against petitioner-accused as noticed herein above in C.C.No.804/2015 he is now seeking for quashing of said proceedings on the ground of parity namely, contending that continuation of proceedings against him would not serve any purpose and conducting of trial would only be an exercise in futility since all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile in the trial conducted against the accused. As such, C.N.Raju, learned counsel for petitioner seeks for quashing of the proceedings.
6. Per contra, Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State would support the prosecution and contends that on account of petitioner having been absconding, if the proceedings are quashed merely on the ground that other accused persons are acquitted, it would amount to granting premium to an accused who has been absconding. Hence, he prays for rejection of the petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the records, it would clearly disclose that prosecution had initiated the proceedings against accused persons on the basis of the complaint lodged by the CW1-C.H.Kumara in Crime No.193/2008. The allegation made against petitioner herein as well as accused Nos.4 to 14 who came to be tried in C.C.No.123/2009 are one and the same. PW-7, official from Tobacco Board who came to be examined in C.C.No.123/2009 has stated that there was a quarrel at platform No.4 amongst the farmers and when Police arrived, there was conversation between them and he does not specifically know who had assaulted the Police. PW8, another official of Tobacco Board, has deposed on the same line as that of PW7. Eye witness-PW10 does not specifically state about the complicity or overt-act alleged to have been committed by present petitioner and also other accused persons. PW9-mahazar witness has turned hostile. PW14, another eye witness has also stated that he does not know who had assaulted CW1.
8. In light of said evidence tendered by the prosecution it was analyzed by the learned Magistrate while trying accused Nos.4 to 14 and it has opined that all the witnesses have categorically stated that there were more than 150 farmers assembled and they were rising slogans against staff of Tobacco Board and their evidence is contrary to the statement made by the jurisdictional Police. As such, learned Magistrate arrived at a conclusion that in absence of any specific incriminating evidence available against accused, it would not be safe to convict them and as such accused Nos.4 to 14 came to be acquitted.
9. As it could be seen from the records and charge sheet material, the allegation made against present petitioner is not only similar and identical but also it is replica of all the allegations made against accused Nos.4 to 14. In other words, allegation made by the complainant-CW1 in his complaint EX.P3 against all the accused persons including petitioner herein is one and the same.
10. In the light of said allegation made by CW1 in C.C.No.123/2009, accused Nos.4 to 14 came to be tried for the offences alleged against them and after trial they have been acquitted. Since, petitioner herein/accused No.1 stands on same footing as that of accused Nos.4 to 14, this Court is of considered view that continuation of proceedings against petitioner would be an exercise in futility and it would not sub-serve the ends of justice. In other words, even if the material available on record would go uncontroverted, petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of the offences or it cannot be held that petitioner would be punished for the said offences.
11. In the light of abovestated facts, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against petitioner would not only result in waste of judicial time but an abuse of process of law as it would not serve any purpose whatsoever. Hence, the following:
ORDER I. Criminal petition is hereby allowed.
II. Proceedings pending in C.C.No.804/2015 before Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna, Mysore against petitioner is hereby quashed.
III. Petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 353 and 352 read with Section 149 of IPC.
SD/- JUDGE SB