Allowed

Abhinandan a R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2020CRL.P/1233/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition to quash proceedings against the petitioner. Relying on precedents, the Court held that since the Sessions Court acquitted the main accused on merits, finding no offence made out, continuing proceedings against the petitioner who faced no separate allegations would be futile, especially given the same prosecution witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in S.C.No.2037/2018 under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC are quashed.

Abhinandan a R Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

1 CRL.P. NO.1233 OF 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1233 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ABHINANDAN A.R. S/O RAJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS NO.37, KUMARAPPA BUILDING GARDEN RESTAURANT DEAD END KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560057 NOW R/AT ACHANAHALLI VILLAGE SAKLESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573134 ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.PRASANNA D.P, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560001 ... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.2037/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU CCH-68 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 402 OF IPC.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

2 CRL.P. NO.1233 OF 2020

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in S.C.No.2037/2018 pending on the file of LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.

¶18

Crime No.61/2015 had been registered against the petitioner and four other persons for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. Since accused No.1 was a juvenile and accused No.3 and 5 were absconding, Sessions Court directed for splitting up of the charge sheet and proceedings were conducted only against accused Nos.2 and 4. After holding full-fledged trial, the Sessions Court was pleased to acquit accused Nos.2 and 4 of the said offences in S.C.No.1115/2016 on the ground that the prosecution has been unable to prove the case as against accused Nos.2 and 4.

¶19

CRL.P. NO.1233 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

Petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court contending that once the proceedings as against accused Nos.2 and 4 had been completed and said accused Nos.2 and 4 had been acquitted on merits of the matter and the Sessions Court has categorically held that there is no offence made out against them and there being no allegation insofar as petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned, benefit of said acquittal is to be passed on to the accused No.3-petitioner herein. Hence, the proceedings initiated against petitioner-accused No.3 in S.C.No.2037/2018 are required to be quashed.

¶22

Sri.V.S.Vinayaka, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent submits that insofar as petitioneraccused No.3 concerned, a wooden stick which was proposed to be used for committal of the offence was seized from the possession of the petitioner and to that effect, there is a deposition

¶23

CRL.P. NO.1233 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

of PW-4. He submits that the proceedings ought to continue insofar as petitioner-accused No.3 is concerned.

¶26

On enquiry, learned HCGP submits that the State has not filed any appeal insofar as judgment passed in S.C.No.1115/2016.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent, I am of the considered opinion that the accused No.5 was absconding and the proceedings against accused No.1 had been dropped on account of he being a juvenile, insofar as accused Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, on merits of the matter, the Sessions Court came to a categorical conclusion that there is no offence made out against them and there being no separate allegations made against the petitioner-accused No.3 in S.C.No.1115/2016 and merely because a wooden

¶28

stick was seized from accused No.3, the same

¶29

CRL.P. NO.1233 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

would not require a trial to be held insofar as the said accused No.3-petitioner is concerned when it would be the very same witness who would lead evidence and prosecution would again fail to make out a case against the petitioner - accused No.3.

¶32

In view of the same, once the order has been passed on merit, the same order would enure to the benefit of the petitioner also. More so, in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of

¶33

Hassan @ Mohammed Hassan –v- The State of Karnataka passed in W.P.55102/2017 DD 14.12.2017, more particularly paragraph 12 thereof. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation –vAkhilesh Singh reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 (para 13) and in the case of Muneer Ahmed Qureshi, Muneer @ Gaun Muneer –v- State of

¶34

6 CRL.P. NO.1233 OF 2020

¶35

Karnataka by Kumarswamy Layout Police reported in 2002(1) KCCR 1 (para 14).

¶36

Applying the said dicta to the present case, the proceedings as against petitioner-accused No.3 cannot also be continued for the very same reason.

¶37

In view thereof, petition is allowed. The proceedings in S.C.No.2037/2018 pending on the file of LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC are quashed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Prs*

Abhinandan a R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinandan a R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Haji Sirajuddin Vs State of Karnataka

B G Lalithamma Vs State of Karnataka

R.S. Suman Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Venkatesh Vs Mr. Abhishek Karanth

Mr. Venkatesh Vs Mr. Abhishek Karanth

Mr. Venkatesh Vs Mr. Abhishek Karanth