The High Court allowed a writ petition under Articles 226, 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. The proceeding was in a split trial resulting from the co-accused's acquittal.
Proceedings in S.C.No.76/2015 against the petitioner are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.42837 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
Sri. Naveen Shetty, Son of Harishchandra Shetty, Aged about 32 years, Residing at Akasha Bhavana, Kavooru Village, Mangaluru Taluk, Dakshina Kannada 575 001.
…PETITIONER
(By Shri Karthik Bhargav, Advocate for Shri Arun Shyam , Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Mangalore Rural Police, Mangalore – DK represented By its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
2
(By Smt. R. Anitha, Government Pleader)
*****
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire proceedings in S.C.No.76/2015 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, as far as this petitioner is concerned vide Annexure-A.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is seeking quashing of proceedings in SC 76/2015. The petitioner was one amongst several accused and the case was split up in view of the petitioner not being available at the time of the trial. The trial having proceeded in SC 126/2011 against other accused, the same has resulted in acquittal of the accused, on the finding that the evidence of the prosecution did
not bring home charges and since the witnesses had turned hostile. It is in this background that the petitioner seeks that the proceedings pending against him be quashed as it is sheer waste
3
of judicial time in the matter being taken to its logical conclusion when the result is predictable. In that, the prosecution does not have any better evidence and would rely on the very same evidence that was tendered in SC 126/2011.
The learned Government Pleader does not dispute this position.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in SC 76/2015 are quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
nv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed in view of the acquittal of co-accused in a split trial due to lack of evidence and hostile witnesses.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Naveen Shetty
State of Karnataka
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
