Allowed

Ramesh @ Ekamabram v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2021CRL.P/3426/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash proceedings against the petitioner. The High Court quashed proceedings and set petitioner at liberty following the principle from Deepak Rajak case that benefit of acquittal extends to co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.352/2016 are quashed and the petitioner shall be set at liberty.

Ramesh @ Ekamabram Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3426 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Ramesh @ Ekamabram Son of Shanmugam, Aged about 35 years, R/o 4/37, Chinnayya Mestri Thotam, Abhaya Nagar, Thirpatturu-695601. Veluru District, Tamilnadu State.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Rajakumar C., Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka by Hennur Police Station, Bengaluru, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru - 560001.

¶12

Sri M Ramesh, APC-843 (Jeep Driver) CAR (South) Hennur Police Station, Bengaluru-560043.

¶13

…Respondents

¶14

(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1 & R2)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings pending on the file of XIII Additional City Civil and

¶16

:: 2 ::

¶17

Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru City (CCH22) in S.C.NO.352/2016, (in Crime No.46/2012) for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 307, 120(b) read with Section 149 of IPC of Hennur Police Station, allow the petition and etc.

¶18

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri Rajakumar C, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court

¶21

Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

¶22

The petitioner is accused No.4 in S.C.No.352/2016, on the file of XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru City. At the initial stage, the police filed charge sheet which was numbered as S.C.No.869/2012 in relation to offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 307, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC. The charge sheet against accused 1 and 4 was split, since they did not appear before the Court and only accused 2, 3, 5 and 6 faced trial in

¶23

:: 3 ::

¶24

S.C.No.869/2012. Learned Additional City Civil

¶25

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru by her judgment dated 25.05.2018, acquitted accused 2, 3, 5 and 6, giving benefit of doubt.

¶26

3. Now the petitioner is before this Court on

¶27

the ground that the same benefit must also be extended to him, because, even if he is asked to face the trial, the prosecution case will not improve, because same witnesses will come and depose.

¶28

I have perused the charge sheet. The allegations against the petitioner are same. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 02.03.2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DEEPAK

¶29

RAJAK VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL [(2007)15

¶30

SCC 305], has clearly held that if one accused is acquitted, the same benefit may be extended to the co-accused. Therefore following this principle, it may be stated that the petitioner is also entitled

¶31

:: 4 ::

¶32

to the benefit of acquittal given to other accused as all of them stand on same footing. Hence the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Petition is allowed.

¶35

Proceedings against the petitioner in S.C.No.352/2016 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru City (CCH-22) are quashed.

¶36

The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith if he is not required in any other case/s.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Kmv/-

Ramesh @ Ekamabram v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh @ Ekamabram 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

Smt. Kavya K M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shivaprasad Vs State by

The State of West Bengal by Vs the State of Karnataka by

Punith Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R S Kulakarni Vs Sri v Raju

Mukkatira Neeth Aiyappa Vs the State by Ponnampet P S