Allowed

Dadapeer v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024CRL.P/7911/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, absconding accused No.7 in a fake currency circulation case, sought parity with co-accused acquitted by the Sessions Court. Holding the acquittal reasons applied equally to him and further trial would waste judicial time, the High Court quashed S.C.No.40/2024 qua petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in S.C.No.40/2024 before I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga quashed qua the petitioner.

Dadapeer Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36857 CRL.P No. 7911 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7911 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DADAPEER, S/O BAKTHUR SAB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O KUNIKERE VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, D.K.DISTRICT-577599.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HOSADURGA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK T.H. POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, HOSADURGA POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.40/2024, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36857 CRL.P No. 7911 of 2024

¶20

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHITRADURGA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 489-D, 489-E, 420, 120-B OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner/accused No.7 is knocking at the doors of this Court claiming parity with the order of acquittal passed in favour of accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.

¶25

Heard Sri Suyog Herele E, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Sowmya R, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

¶26

The petitioner along with others gets embroiled in a crime of circulation of fake notes of Rs.500/- and therefore becomes an offence punishable under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 489E, 420 read with 120B of IPC. The police conducted investigation and filed a charge-sheet and the matter

¶27

was tried before the concerned Court and in relevant point in time, the petitioner/accused No.7 was not available for trial. The concerned Court split the case against the petitioner in

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:36857 CRL.P No. 7911 of 2024

¶30

C.C.No.654/2011 and sought to try the petitioner separately. The concerned Court i.e., the Court of Sessions, in terms of its order dated 26.05.2015 acquits accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Accused No.4 died during the trial. The lone accused who is left with the proceedings is accused No.7 – the present petitioner. The case against the petitioner is now sought to be tried in S.C.No.40/2024. It is therefore he is before this Court in the subject petition.

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the reasons so rendered to acquit all the other accused would enure to the benefit of the petitioner and continuance of further trial would become contrary to law.

¶32

The learned High Court Government Pleader would however refute the submission to contend that to a person who escaped the trial, this Court should not show any indulgence and the petitioner should come out clean like other accused who have come out clean after the trial.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:36857 CRL.P No. 7911 of 2024

¶35

I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶36

The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The accused getting embroiled in a crime for circulation of fake notes or counterfeit notes is a matter on record. The other accused i.e., accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 get acquitted by the order of the Court of the Session dated 26.05.2015. The reasons so rendered to acquit the said accused can be gathered from paragraph Nos.76 and 77. They read as follows:

¶37

76. As already referred above the investigating officers P.W.07 and 12 have not taken signatures of the neighbourers of the house of Jayanna, resident of Parashurampura village, Doreswamy resident of Jogammanahalli village and peelapura gate and there was a delay of 2 days in reporting the seizure of the fake currency notes, scanner etc., from the possession of the accused No.3 to 5, I have inferred that the accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are entitle to have benefit of doubt. Hence, in the light of the precedents of Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka cited on behalf of the accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 by exercising benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons, I have inferred that uncorroborated oral evidence and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution are not sufficient to connect accused

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:36857 CRL.P No. 7911 of 2024

¶40

persons with the fake currency notes, scanner, mobiles and other articles marked at M.O.1 to 14.

¶41

77. As the evidence placed by the prosecution are not sufficient to connect the accused persons with the fake currency notes marked at M.O.1, 4 to 6 and 14 it is not possible to either believe or infer that accused persons have either prepared fake currency notes or engaged or made effort to circulate the fake currency notes. Hence, I came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed offence punishable U/Section 489(a) to 489(e), 120(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC. Hence, I answer point No.1 to 4 in the negative and pass the following order:-

¶42

ORDER

¶43

1) Acting U/S.235(1) of Cr.P.C., I acquit accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 from the charges of the offence punishable U/S.489(a) to 489(e), 120(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶44

2) Scanner, colour printer, paper cutter, laptop, 7 bundles paper, ink cartridge, 3 mobiles marked at M.O.2, 3, 7 to 13 are confiscated to the state.

¶45

3) After this judgment reached finality office to dispose the fake currency notes according to law.

¶46

If the reasons so rendered to acquit the other

¶47

accused are perused, it would undoubtedly become applicable to

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:36857 CRL.P No. 7911 of 2024

¶50

the case of the petitioner as well. The petitioner though has escaped trial and was not available at the relevant point in time, permitting further trial against this petitioner in S.C.No.40/2024, who would eventually get acquitted for the offence on the same reason, would be a waste of precious judicial time.

¶51

In that light, notwithstanding the vehement

¶52

opposition of the learned High Court Government Pleader, I deem it appropriate to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.40/2024 on the score that all other accused have been acquitted in the crime.

¶53

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶54

ORDER

¶55

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶56

(ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.40/2024 pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga, stand quashed qua the petitioner.

¶57

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶58

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Dadapeer v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadapeer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amith Kumar Rana Vs State of Karnataka

Lingraj Naika H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Govind Ganapa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. a. Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumantha Vs State of Karnataka

Alfred Devid Vs State of Karnataka