Dismissed

Shreesha Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2023CRL.P/2647/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by an absconding accused seeking acquittal by parity. The court held that the petitioner could not claim acquittal without surrendering and undergoing trial to be apprised of the evidence against him. He was directed to surrender for committal to the Sessions Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Petitioner directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate for committal to the Sessions Court.

Shreesha Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36183 CRL.P No. 2647 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2647 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHREESHA KUMAR S/O. LATE ANANDA SHETTY AGED 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-127(4), SHEDIGURI HOUSE, JOKATTE POST THOKURU VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT- 575011

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. E. SUYOG HERELE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SURATHKAL POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

MOHAMMAD RIYAZ S/O. A. ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT. C/O SATHISH, DOOR NO.8-157/1, NEAR SALIYAN GAS, EDYA VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK- 575014.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶16

VIDE ORDER DATED 11.01.2021 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36183 CRL.P No. 2647 of 2020

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.124/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC II COURT AT MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 363, 323, 324, 355, 506, 307, 201 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner, being accused No.4, has filed this petition challenging the prosecution launched against him in C.C.No.124/2017 pending trial before JMFC - II Court, Mangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 323, 324, 355, 506, 307, 201 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short).

¶22

A charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 323, 324, 355, 506, 307 and 201 read with 34 of IPC. The accused No.4 was not produced before the Magistrate Court and therefore, the accused No.4 was not committed before the Sessions Court. Consequently, the charge sheet against accused No.4 was split up and the trial against accused Nos.1 to 3 was taken up. The Trial Court after recording the

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36183 CRL.P No. 2647 of 2020

¶24

evidence and considering the material on record, acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3, in terms of the judgment and order dated 20.01.2020.

¶25

Therefore, the petitioner/accused No.4 has filed this petition seeking his acquittal on the ground of parity, as the complainant/CW.1 had turned hostile and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be acquitted. He has relied upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5389/2017 dated 10.10.2017 in the case of Sri. Mohammed Asif Vs. State of Karnataka and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jayant Etc Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh - (2021) 2 SCC 670.

¶26

The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner without surrendering before the Magistrate cannot take advantage of the acquittal of the other accused.

¶27

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:36183 CRL.P No. 2647 of 2020

¶30

The petitioner had absconded from facing the trial

¶31

and therefore, the charge sheet against the petitioner was split up and the case is presently pending before the Sessions Court awaiting committal. No doubt, accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted due to the fact that CW.1 had turned hostile. However, this cannot be exploited by the petitioner to claim parity on the ground that accused Nos.1 to 3 had already acquitted of the same charges, without he undergoing the rigor of trial and it could be that the prosecution witnesses could identify the role of this petitioner.

¶32

In that view of the matter, the petitioner without surrendering before the Magistrate cannot claim to be acquitted on the ground that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have been acquitted. Therefore, this petition lacks merits and is dismissed .

¶33

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate who shall take steps in accordance with law to commit the case before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court may take further steps in accordance with law.

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:36183 CRL.P No. 2647 of 2020

¶35

¶36

It is always open for the petitioner to file necessary application for discharge and the Trial Court may consider the said application uninfluenced by the order passed by this Court.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Shreesha Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreesha Kumar 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

Sri. G. Lakshman Singh Vs Kum. Neha @ Rakshita

Mr. Gopal B Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. C.Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

G Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt R Nagarani Vs the Principal Secretary

Lotus Three Developments Limited Vs Union of India