Allowed

Manjunatha @ Anali Manja v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2023CRL.P/3239/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against the petitioner. Since co-accused charged with similar offences were acquitted due to lack of independent witnesses, continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of process, necessitating the relator's acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.20756/2021 insofar as they relate to the petitioner accrued as Accused No.2 are quashed, and the petitioner is acquitted.

Manjunatha @ Anali Manja Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41814 CRL.P No. 3239 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3239 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANJUNATHA @ ANALI MANJA S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO 1254, 4TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, BENGALURU 560 026.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYATARAYANAPURA P S, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. VENKATSATYANARAYAN A, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20756/2021 REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN CRIME NO.140/2013 OF RESPONDENT BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B), 399 AND 402 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XXXI ADDITIONAL C.M.M., AT BENGALURU.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:41814 CRL.P No. 3239 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of IPC.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

¶22

On 26.3.2013, at about 7.00 p.m., the complainant received credible information that, near BHEL company, Mysore Road, No.321, near SLV Sawmill and Wood Industries Factory within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura Police Station, the associates of Vinay who is in prison had given instructions to his followers to attack Loki and Datta with the weapons and rob the valuables and murder them. On instructions, the said accused armed with deadly weapons were making preparations for committing dacoity. Immediately, CW1-Police Inspector along with CW.5 to 8 and panchas CW.2 and 3 rushed to the spot and found 10 persons assembled, and on confirmation, raided the spot and Police Inspector apprehended 5 accused persons, seized the vehicles, mobile phones and the deadly weapons, and the other accused persons fled away from the spot. Thereafter, Rajesh, Manjunath, Mahendra, Prashanth and Ravi were arrested and were brought to the Byatarayanapura Police Station.

¶23

The petitioner herein having absconded, the charge sheet was split up and the Trial Court after conducting trial against accused Nos.3 to 6 and appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted them on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the said accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:41814 CRL.P No. 3239 of 2023

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge against the present accused and accused Nos.3 to 6 is similar and not distinct and the Trial Court having acquitted the accused Nos.3 to 6, and to maintain parity, the impugned proceedings against the petitioner herein requires to be quashed.

¶26

The Learned HCGP would submit that the Petitioner having absconded is not entitled for the relief sought for, and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

I have Considered the submissions.

¶28

Perusal of the charge sheet material indicated that the charges against the Petitioner and accused Nos.3 to 6 are similar and they are not distinct and separate.

¶29

It is settled law that when there are no separate and distinct allegations made against the petitioner herein and other accused persons, and when other accused persons are acquitted, it would amount to abuse of process of law, if the prosecution is ordered to be continued against the petitioner.

¶30

It is also a settled law that the judgment of acquittal of co-accused would not be admissible within the meaning of Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such, the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the coaccused. However, the said legal principle is applicable when the material witnesses have not been examined resulting in acquittal.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:41814 CRL.P No. 3239 of 2023

¶33

The Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.3 to 6 on the ground that none of the independent witnesses were examined and only official witnesses were examined and the evidence tendered by the said official witnesses did not establish the guilt of the said accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The witnesses to be examined are one and the same. Therefore, It would be a futile exercise, if the petitioner is subjected to trial, since the probability of his conviction is remote and bleak. So as to prevent the abuse of process of law and to maintain parity, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The criminal petition is allowed;

¶36

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.20756/2021 pending on the file of the XXXI Additional C.M.M. at Bengaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioneraccused No.2 stands quashed and consequently, the petitioner is acquitted of the said offences.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Manjunatha @ Anali Manja v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha @ Anali Manja 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

Mohammad Ali, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Annapurna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep Kumar Shekar Vs State of Karnataka

Raghuraj @ Raghu Vs State of Karnataka

Edward Makri Desouza Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagarjuna M Vs State of Karnataka by