Allowed

Junaid v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024CRL.P/9335/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a split-up accused in an unlawful assembly and riot case, sought quashing of his pending trial after co-accused were acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. as all material witnesses turned hostile. The High Court held nothing survived for trial and quashed the charge-sheet against him.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet in Crime No.369/2013 against petitioner/Accused No.14 quashed.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:43105 CRL.P No. 9335 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9335 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JUNAID, S/O ABOOBAKKAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NEAR MALLURU KATTE, BAJANA MANDIR, MALLURU VILLAGE AND POST MANGALORE 575 029

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHOK KUMAR SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

BY MANGALURU RURAL POLICE STATION, MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU 560 001

¶14

LATHA

¶15

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O SEETHARAMA POOJARY, BADAKA BAIL HOUSE, MANIKANTA PURA, POLALI POST, KARIYANGALA VILLAGE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:43105 CRL.P No. 9335 of 2024

BANTWAL TALUK

D.K. 574 153.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP FOR R1; V/O/D 25.10.2024, NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.53/2018 (CRIME NO. 369/2013 OF MANGALORE RURAL P.S) ON THE FILE OF JMFC III COURT, MANGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 395 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.14

¶27

under Section 582 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') (Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,) for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.53/2018 pending on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K, Mangaluru.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43105 CRL.P No. 9335 of 2024

¶29

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of C.W.1, Mangaluru Rural Police registered an F.I.R in Crime No.369/2013 dated 21.10.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 395, 448, 323, 324, 354 read with Section 149 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against 17 accused persons including the present petitioner. The petitioner was Accused No.14 before the Sessions Judge and trial was conducted. The trial was in progress, but the petitioner-Accused No.14 is said to have remained absent. Hence, case against the present petitioner was ordered to be split up. For other remaining accused, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and numbered as S.C.No.28/2018. The other accused persons have undergone the trial in S.C.No.28/2018 and the case against the accused persons ended in acquittal as per the

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43105 CRL.P No. 9335 of 2024

¶33

Judgment of the Sessions Court dated 29.09.2021 passed under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.

¶34

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that all the other accused in the criminal proceedings are acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge by an order under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner submits that conducting trial against the present petitioner is an abuse of process of law and prays for quashing the same.

¶35

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objects the petition contending that allegation against this petitioner is that he was absent and he has not faced the trial. Therefore, prays for dismissing the petition.

¶36

In this case, the name of the petitioner is shown as Accused No.14. Before committing the case, the petitioner remained absent. Therefore, case against him was split up and C.C.No.53/2018 had been given to him. Other accused persons faced trial in S.C.No.28/2018. After

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:43105 CRL.P No. 9335 of 2024

¶38

framing of charge, the Trial Court examined six witnesses and all the material witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, the Trial Court has not proceeded with the trial and the order of acquittal has been passed under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no case made out for recording 313 Cr.P.C., statement. Such being the case, once the matter ended up in acquittal, that too acquittal under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and there is no specific evidence made out by the prosecution from the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6. Such being the case, even if the petition is committed to the Court of Sessions and trial has

¶39

begun, the Sessions Court is required to acquit the petitioner as all the material witnesses have turned hostile.

¶40

The contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader cannot be accepted as there is specific allegation made against the petitioner in the trial. In fact all the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:43105 CRL.P No. 9335 of 2024

¶42

¶43

and conducting trial against this petitioner is uncalled for and nothing survives for consideration.

¶44

Therefore, the Petition is allowed. The charge-sheet

¶45

in Crime No.369/2013 filed by the Mangaluru Rural Police

¶46

as against Accused No.14 is hereby quashed.

¶47

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶48

BNV ct-snn/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10

Junaid v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaid 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

Dr v Narayanaswamy Vs Sri v Ramaiah

Smt Saraswathi N Vs State of Karnataka

Hombalamma Vs Raju

Smt Tasneem Begum Vs Smt Manjula

Mr Z Ameenullah Baig Vs Mrs Nageena Begum

Axis Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka by