Allowed

M Sreekanth v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021CRL.P/4357/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash proceedings against the petitioner in a robbery case. Relying on the acquittal of co-accused due to lack of identification parade and failed prosecution evidence, the court held that conducting a trial against the petitioner would be a futile exercise and parited the proceedings accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in SC No.5012/2018 pending before the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madhugiri, are quashed. The order dated 22.06.2018 issuing NBW agai

M Sreekanth Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4357 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

M. SREEKANTH S/O. LATE MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MAVINAHALLI VILLAGE, DASANAKOPPALU HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORATAGERE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

SRI RAMESH H.S. S/O. SIDDALINGAPPA, RESIDENT OF HARIHARAPPANAPALYA VILLAGE, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.No.5012/2018 PENDING FOR TRIAL FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 395 AND 210 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MADHUGIRI AND

¶17

¶18

ALTERNATELY, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2018 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MADHUGIRI IN S.C.No.5012/2018 ISSUING NBW AGAINST THE A2/PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.5012/2018 including the further criminal proceedings against him pending on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madhugiri.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.

¶23

Respondent No.2 served, but remained unrepresented.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one H.S. Ramesh alleging that some unknown persons committed robbery and fled away with the jewels of his wife, a case came to be registered on 09.10.2011 in FIR No.264/2011 by Koratagere Police Station. After the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet by arresting accused No.2-Venkatesha, but this petitioner, accused Nos.3

¶25

¶26

and 4 were shown as absconding. Accused No.2-Venkatesha was tried in SC No.5012/2013, which ended in acquittal for the offences under Sections 397 and 201 of IPC. Further, the case of the petitioner is that accused No.1 and accused No.4 filed Crl.P.No.7174/2018 and Crl.P.8511/2018 wherein, this Court has quashed the further proceedings. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings against him.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 before the Court, they could not identify the accused persons and there is no identification parade conducted. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court has held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against accused No.2. Ultimately, the case ended in acquittal. The evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses are one and the same and the charges leveled against the accused persons are common. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner is also entitled for quashing of all further

¶28

¶29

proceedings against him as proceeding for trial is a futile exercise.

¶30

Learned High Court Government Pleader though argued the matter, but not disputed the fact that the co-accused persons are acquitted by the Trial Court and against some of them, criminal proceedings were quashed.

¶31

Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, especially the judgment of the Trial Court in SC No.5012/2013 at paragraph 27, the Trial Court has categorically held that the alleged offence has taken place in darkness. PWs.1 to 4 were not able to identify any of the accused persons and the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as there was no test identification parade conducted by the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the case ended in acquittal. Based upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in Crl.P.No.7174/2018, the proceedings against accused No.1 has been quashed on 05.07.2020. Accused No.4 filed Crl.P.No.7511/2018, wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against

¶32

5

¶33

him on 24.06.2018. This petitioner being accused No.3 in the original charge sheet and accused No.2 in SC No.3012/2018, against him the same charges are leveled. Therefore, there is no question of differing the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 against this petitioner and conducting trial or proceeding with the trial is a futile exercise. The proceedings against this petitioner requires to be quashed on the ground of parity. Hence, the following;

¶34

Order

¶35

Criminal petition is allowed.

¶36

The proceedings against petitioner/accused No.2 (accused No.3 in the original charge sheet), in SC No.5012/2018 pending on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Madhugiri, is hereby quashed.

¶37

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

M Sreekanth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Sreekanth 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puneeth @ Benki Puni Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunath v Vs Smt. Shobha

Sahana @ Shahid Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Dakshayanamma H U Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B N S Reddy Vs State by

Lakshman Reddy Vs State of Karnataka