Allowed

Mohammed Sharief @ Khasim v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2020CRL.P/1422/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an accused who had absconded, allowing him the benefit of parity acquired by the acquittal of his co-accused in the same cause of action, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding parity.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.904/2012 registered with Buntwal Rural Police Station are quashed insofar as concerns the petitioner-accused No.6.

Mohammed Sharief @ Khasim Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1422 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHAMMED SHARIEF @ KHASIM S/O H.B. HYDROSE BEARY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT: MAINADALA HOUSE NAVOORU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. DISTRICT – 575 211.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI LETHIF.B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION REP. BY THE S.P.P HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶12

ABDUL HAMEED S/O LATE: HAMMABBA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS SURA HOUSE, NAVOOORU VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K DISTRICT – 575 211

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI VINAYAKA.V.S., HCGP FOR R1,

R2 - SERVED)

Crl.P.No.1422/2019

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.904/2012 (CR.NO.218/2008) BANTWAL RURAL POLICE STATION, D.K., ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BANTWAL, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/W 149 of IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner who is accused No.6 in C.C.No.904/2012 arising out of Crime No.218/2008 registered by the Buntwal Rural Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings against him.

¶23

2. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 31.08.2018

¶24

alleging that at about 10.p.m., there was a quarrel with regard to hearing of a cassette of Salafi Group. Due to which FIR was registered in Crime No.218/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/w 149 of IPC against 6 accused. Thereafter, a charge sheet was laid against these accused in C.C.No.335/2009, the petitioner was arrayed as accused

¶25

Crl.P.No.1422/2019

¶26

¶27

No.6 in the said charge sheet. However, on account of the petitioner-accused No.6 absconding, the charge sheet was split up and the proceedings continued against accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C.No.335/2009. After conduct of trial, the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Buntwal, D.K, Mangalore acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5 holding that the testimony of PW.1 was uncorroborated and that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed offences alleged against them.

¶28

Subsequent to the acquittal of the said accused Nos.1 to 5, the petitioner is before this Court contending that since accused Nos.1 to 5 have been acquitted after due trial, the petitioner is also required to be treated on parity and benefit thereof and the proceedings insofar as C.C.No.904/2012 is required to be quashed.

¶29

Sri Lethif B learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 5 after complete trial on merits, the said order of acquittal has

¶30

Crl.P.No.1422/2019

¶31

¶32

not been challenged by the State by way of filing an appeal. Hence, no purpose would be served by subjecting the petitioner to another trial which would more than likely result in acquittal. On these grounds and relying on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Tajoddin @ Taju Ansari vs. State in Crl.P.No.201137/2018, Ravi @ Ravichandra P vs. State in Crl.P.No.4796/2017 and Shakeel Ahammada vs State in W.P.No.709/2018 he would submit that on the ground of parity, the proceedings against petitioner-accused No.6 has to be quashed.

¶33

Per contra , Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-State would submit that the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of the petitioner having absconding and seek for acquittal on the ground of parity. The petitioner is therefore, required to stand trial.

¶34

Crl.P.No.1422/2019

¶35

¶36

Heard Sri Lethif B learned counsel for the petitioner

¶37

and Sri Vinayaka V.S. learned HCGP for respondent No.1State and perused the records.

¶38

In view of the decisions relied upon by Sri Lethif B, detailed hereinabove, it is seen that even an absconding accused can take benefit of the acquittal of other accused after trial. Once there is an acquittal on merits after consideration of the evidence on record and the said evidence being equally applicable to the petitioneraccused No.6, I am of the considered opinion that the same would also result in acquittal, as the very same offences are alleged against the petitioner and it is the very same material object which should be considered in evidence, there being no other changed circumstances as also the State having not filed any appeal against the order of acquittal, the benefit of acquittal against accused Nos.1 to 5 is also to be given to accused No.6.

¶39

In view thereof, the petition is allowed. Proceedings

¶40

in C.C.No.904/2012 arising out of Crime No.218/2008

¶41

Crl.P.No.1422/2019

¶42

¶43

registered with Buntwal Rural Police Station, Dakshina Kannada pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Buntwal is hereby quashed insofar as petitioneraccused No.6 is concerned.

¶44

Petition is allowed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

nms

Mohammed Sharief @ Khasim v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sharief @ Khasim v. the 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

Ravi Vs a N Moggannagowda

Sri Jodhraj Vs Smt Prabha Bharat Shah

Smt. M.P. Sridevi Vs Sri. R. Chandrappa

Smt. Sharadamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Paul Vincent S/O Vincent, C.P, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Elavarasan Mani Vs Indian Institute of Managment Bangalore