Allowed

Yasir Arafath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023CRL.P/8705/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a quash petition under Section 482 CrPC, terminating criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that since co-accused were acquitted after examining all prosecution witnesses due to failure to prove guilt, continuing the trial would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; impugned proceedings in C.C. No.1829/2023 against the petitioner stood quashed.

Yasir Arafath Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39256 CRL.P No. 8705 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8705 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

YASIR ARAFATH, S/O K.M.HAMZA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.18/-124/5, 3^RD CROSS, AZAD NAGAR, ULLAL, MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT – 575 020.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUIDLING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ANANTHA KRISHNA S., S/O SRIKUMAR P, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT VELIYANADU, ALAPURA, KERALA, PRESENTLY R/AT KOTTARA CHOUKI, NEAR KARAVALI COLLEGE HOSTEL, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT – 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.NAGENDRAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.2023)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:39256 CRL.P No. 8705 of 2023

¶17

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1829/2023 ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-II COURT, MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 341, 323, 504, 506 AND 153(a) R/W 149 OF IPC OF MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 504, 506 and 153(a) read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶21

2. The case of the prosecution is that C.W.1 was studying a second year Fashion Designer Course. C.W.2 is the classmate of C.W.1. On 13.12.2014, since it was a holiday for the college, C.Ws.1 and 2 had been to Hampankatta for purchasing designer clothes and fancy items for fashion designer practical work. When they got down from the bus and proceeded to walk, at that time, accused Nos.1 and 6 wrongfully restrained C.w.1 and 2 and abused C.W.1 in filthy language. Accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulted C.W.1 and on seeing the public, accused Nos.1 to 4 fled away from the spot by threatening C.W.1 by saying that if he roams around with the muslim girl they will do away with his life.

¶22

3. A split up charge sheet was filed since accused No.3 was absconding and the Trial Court after conducting full fledged trial against accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 in C.C.No.997/2016 and Accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.1725/2017 acquitted the said

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39256 CRL.P No. 8705 of 2023

¶24

accused, holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the said accused beyond all reasonable doubt since the material witnesses turned hostile.

¶25

4. This petition is filed to quash the impugned proceedings stating that the allegation against the petitioneraccused are similar and the witnesses to be examined are same.

¶26

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent –State.

¶27

6. Perusal of the charge sheet material indicates that the charges against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are similar and they are not distinct and separate.

¶28

7. 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.

¶29

8. In Crl.P.No.6857/2020, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the judgment of acquittal of co-accused would not be admissible within the meaning of Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act and as such, the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the co-accused. However, in the said case, the decision was rendered in the context that only two witnesses vizPWs.1 and 2 who were examined, have not supported the case of the prosecution, but the eyewitnesses to

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:39256 CRL.P No. 8705 of 2023

¶32

the incident and other witnesses have not been examined before the Trial Court.

¶33

9. In the instant case, the prosecution has examined all the charge sheet witnesses, and also marked the documents which were produced along with the charge sheet, but failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶34

10. Having regard to the fact that all the prosecution witnesses were examined and the prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt resulting in acquittal of co-accused, 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:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶37

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.1829/2023 on the file of JMFC-II Court, Mangaluru insofar it relates to petitioner herein stands quashed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Yasir Arafath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yasir Arafath 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

Nazareen Jadababaei @ C M Seshalatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mr. Bharath Kumar M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Raghavendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Chikkaredappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Pankaja M Vs the State of Karnataka