Allowed

Shivakumar. K @ Kodanda v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2020CRL.P/4463/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed pending criminal proceedings against three petitioners-accused in a dacoity case. Having found that co-accused were already acquitted due to lack of evidence, the Court held that subjecting the petitioners to trial would serve no productive purpose.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.7981/2016 (Crime No.9/2015) against the petitioners were quashed.

Shivakumar. K @ Kodanda Vs State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

1 CRL.P. No.4463 OF 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4463 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHIVAKUMAR. K @ KODANDA S/O KODANDARAMA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT # 205, BALAJI ROAD II BLOCK, T.R. NAGAR BENGALURU-560 028. (PRESENT ADDRESS)

¶9

SAGAR. B. S/O BABU P M AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT #21, II MAIN, 5^TH CROSS NAGASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 028

¶10

GURUMURTHY S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT #555/5, 5^TH MAIN KARISANDRA, BSK II STAGE MUKHYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 070 ... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.RAM SINGH K, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THYAGARAJANAGARA POLICE STATION REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶14

CRL.P. No.4463 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED III A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.7981/2016 (CR.NO.9/2015)

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners who are accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 in Crime No.9/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC are before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.7981/2016 which is now pending on the file of 3^rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with several others on 23.01.2015 at about 4.10 p.m., were making preparations to commit dacoity. Noticing the same, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thyagarajanagar Police Station, Bangalore had summoned panchas. Along with panchas, he seized weapons which were in possession of

¶22

CRL.P. No.4463 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

accused Nos.1 to 5 therein and filed the above complaint. It is alleged that the accused Nos.6 to 8-petitioners herein ran away from the spot. In view of the petitioners/accused Nos.6-8 having absconded, a split up charge sheet was laid and 69^th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore by way of its judgment dated 1^st June 2018 acquitted accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in the said proceedings on the ground that the prosecution has failed to bring home the alleged acts and no cogent and satisfactory evidence had been produced.

¶25

In view of the same, the petitioners-accused Nos.6 to 8 who had absconded are before this Court contending that even if trial were to be conducted insofar as petitioners are concerned, there would be no scope of conviction since there is no evidence on record to implicate the

¶26

CRL.P. No.4463 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

petitioners and the entire proceedings would only be a waste of time.

¶29

This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioners have surfaced post the judgment of acquittal in S.C.No.75/2016. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the said acquittal was on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of the accused therein. Hence, even if the petitioners who have surfaced now are subjected to trial, I am of the considered opinion that no productive purpose would be served. In view thereof, the criminal proceedings against accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 having ended in their acquittal and petitioneraccused Nos.5, 6 and 7 also having been stated to have formed a part of the said unlawful assembly having an intent of committing dacoity,

¶30

I am of the considered opinion that the said

¶31

CRL.P. No.4463 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

proceedings insofar as petitioners are concerned is required to be quashed and they are quashed.

¶34

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.7981/2016 (Crime No.9/2015) which is now pending on the file of 3^rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore is hereby quashed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Prs*/ln

Shivakumar. K @ Kodanda v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivakumar. K @ Kodanda v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Honnamma Vs Nijalingaiah

Vivekananda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Madhu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kurshid Unnisa Vs Smt Phiilomina

Mr Shikhar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka