This order quashes criminal proceedings against petitioners who were priorly acquitted on identical charges in a different FIR, holding that retrying them would amount to an abuse of the process of law and violate Article 21.
The criminal proceedings in CC No.136/2013 pending before the II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1506/2017
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE RESIDENTS AT B-5TH CROSS ROAD, JAYANAGAR, KODIKAL, MANGALORE, D.K.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P.N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.136/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The State Bank of Patiala lodged FIR on 15.6.2009 alleging that the petitioners after depositing the property documents with the Punjab National Bank obtained the loan by mortgaging the property, which was mortgaged with the Punjab National Bank. The said FIR was registered in Crime No.134/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3
4
very same charge of which he has been acquitted. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding will not only be an abuse of process of law but also violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
remained absent.
5
by mortgaging the very same property so as to defraud the Bank. The petitioner has been acquitted in CC No.235/2010 holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner having been acquitted on the very same identical charges cannot be compelled to face the trial in CC No.136/2013 and the same will be an abuse of process of law and also will be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, since the probability of his conviction is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.136/2013
pending on the file of the II Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, is hereby quashed.
bkm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings against a petitioner already acquitted on identical charges in a different FIR violates the principle of abuse of process and Article 21 of the Constitutio
Bhat Achuta & Ors.
State of Karnataka
Hemanth Chandungud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court