IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8088/2018 BETWEEN:
UMMER H.S S/O H. SULAIMAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.6-136 BLOCK NO.6, KATPALLA SURATHKAL, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT – 574 125.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMYA M.L. ON BEHALF OF SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR., ADVOCATES) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SURATHKAL POLICE STATION MANGALORE, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. MOHAMMED SHAREEF S/O HAJI T. AHAMMED BAVA AGED MAJOR R/AT SITE NO.44, BLOCK NO.8 KAUSAR BAGH CHOKKABETTU KATIPALLA VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK – 575 123.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.329/2016, IN CRIME NO.123/2010 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MANGALORE, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 323, 325, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner who was arraigned as accused No.12 in C.C.No.329/2016 (split up charge sheet) (arising out of Crime No.123/2010) is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 325, 506 r/w 149 IPC.
2. Gist of the prosecution case is that on 21.05.2010 at about 1.30 p.m. a meeting was held for selecting new committee to Moideen Jumma Masjid, Chokkabettu, Katipalla village, Mangalore Taluk and at that time, accused Nos.1 to 20 colluding with each other, with a common intention formed an unlawful assembly, abused the complainant in filthy and foul language and assaulted him on his face, cheek and head with their hands, which resulted in Crime No.123/2010 being registered by Surathkal Police against accused Nos.1 to 5 and 40 other persons (known persons). After completion of the investigation, charge sheet in C.C.No.240/2010 came to be filed on 28.06.2010 and accused had been arraigned as accused No.12. On account of petitioner not having appeared before learned Magistrate, split up charge sheet was ordered to be filed against him in C.C.No. 329/2016 and for quashing of said proceedings, petitioner is before this Court.
3. It is the contention of Sri. Dhananjay Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that co-accused who were tried for the same offence and after full fledged trial have been acquitted in C.C. No.240/2010 by judgment dated 21.07.2016.
Hence, he prays for petitioner being acquitted since allegations made against accused persons who have been acquitted and petitioner are one and the same.
4. Per contra, Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State submits that if prayer of the petitioner is granted, it would amount to granting a premium to a person who was absconding and as such, he prays for rejection of the petition.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it would indicate that in the FIR register, name of the petitioner did not find a place. However, subsequently, he has been arraigned as accused and when the matter was pending before learned trial Judge, he had remained absent. Charges made against accused persons as well as allegations made against petitioner is indivisible and inseparable, inasmuch as, charges made against all the accused persons are one and the same. In other words, petitioner stands on the same footing as that of other accused persons who have already been tried acquitted for the same offence and incident is one and the same. Hence, continuation of proceedings against petitioner would only be an empty formality and even if it is taken to its logical end, it would not end in conviction. Even if allegations made in the split up charge sheet against petitioner were to remain unrebutted, it would not lead to conviction of petitioner-accused and it would only be waste of precious judicial time.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioner in C.C.No.329/2016 (arising out of crime No.123/2010) on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 325, 506 read with section 149 IPC is quashed and petitioner is acquitted of the above said offence.
SD/- JUDGE *sp