Allowed¶8

Sri Mohammadkhalid S Goodwala S/O Sadiq Goodwale v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2025CRL.P/100022/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; inherent jurisdiction Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; cognizance under Sections 380, 454 read with Section 34 IPC; cable theft; recovery of copper wires from CW8; confession/statement of accused without corroborative material; no prima facie evidence; identity of stolen cables and recovered wires not established; unexplained delay in lodging FIR (incident 26.02.2024, FIR 05.03.2024); abuse of process of law; CC No.1835/2024; order dated 07.08.2024; III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM Dharwad; Vidaygiri Police Station; Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; Justice Hemant Chandangoudar; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the impugned proceedings in CC No.1835/2024 pending before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad quashed. ¶8

Sri Mohammadkhalid S Goodwala S/O Sadiq Goodwale Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the impugned proceedings in CC No.1835/2024 pending before the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad quashed.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution has placed any prima facie material establishing that the petitioner (Accused No.1) and the other accused committed the theft of the cables. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The prosecution has not placed any material to establish prima facie evidence against the petitioner and the other accused for committing the theft of cables.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The prosecution failed to establish that the cables allegedly stolen by the petitioner and the other accused and the copper wires recovered from CW8 are one and the same.

¶6

Key takeaways

The FIR was lodged on 05.03.2024 for an incident that took place on 26.02.2024, without offering any plausible explanation for the delay.ratio¶6
In the circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law; accordingly, the petition is allowed.ratio¶7
The impugned proceedings in CC No.1835/2024 pending on the file of the learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad are quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 100022 of 2025 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) by Accused No.1 seeking quashing of the order dated 07.08.2024 of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad in CC No.1835/2024 taking cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 380, 454 read with Section 34 IPC — ALLOWED; proceedings quashed (Hemant Chandangoudar, J., 20.02.2025). The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons; the petitioner, a law student, and the other accused (not habitual offenders) were arrested during investigation and allegedly admitted selling stolen cables to CW8. The prosecution placed no prima facie material connecting the accused to the theft; it failed to establish that the cables allegedly stolen and the copper wires recovered from CW8 were one and the same; and the FIR dated 05.03.2024 followed the incident of 26.02.2024 without plausible explanation for the delay. Held that continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3525 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100022 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI. MOHAMMADKHALID S GOODWALA S/O. SADIQ GOODWALE, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. FLAT NO. 02, FLOOR 01, OKWOOD APARTMENT BEHIND SAGAR HOTEL, SARASWATAPUR, DHARWAD, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDAYGIRI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.25 18:00:13 +0530

¶11

SRI. IRANNA ANNIGERI S/O. BASAVANNEPPA AGE. 42 YEARS, OCCP. EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE FIRM, R/O. 3^RD CROSS, ISHWAR NAGAR, LAXMESHWAR, RELIANCE JIO INFORCOM LTD., COMPANY RMZ ICON NO. 51, PLACE ROAD CROSS, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE-01.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH ORDER DATE 07.08.2024 PASSED BY III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD, IN CC NO.1835/2024 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 380, 454, R/W 34 OF IPC, AND ALL THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION AS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3525 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2025

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

The petitioner, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 454 read with Section 34 of the IPC, has approached this Court seeking relief.

¶19

The prosecution alleges that on 26.02.2024, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 cut the cables using a cutting tool, transported them on a motorcycle, and sold them to CW8 for unlawful gain.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was initially lodged against unknown persons. During the investigation, the police, without any cogent evidence, arrested the petitioner and the other accused, who allegedly stated that they had sold the cables to CW8. In the absence of corroborative material to substantiate that the petitioner and the other accused committed the theft, the continuation of criminal proceedings solely on the basis of a confession statement would be an abuse of the process of law.

¶21

In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 – State submitted that the voluntary statement of the petitioner (Accused No.1), coupled with the recovery of cables from CW8, clearly establishes that the petitioner and the other accused committed the theft. He argued that the veracity of the allegations should be considered at the time of trial

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3525 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2025

¶23

and cannot be examined in this petition. He, therefore, sought the dismissal of the petition.

¶24

The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered.

¶25

Initially, the FIR was registered against unknown persons. Admittedly, the petitioner and the other accused are not habitual offenders, and the petitioner (Accused No.1) is a law student. The prosecution has not placed any material to establish prima facie evidence against the petitioner and the other accused for committing the theft of cables. In the absence of any credible evidence, the petitioner and the other accused were arrested, and in their statements, they allegedly admitted to selling the stolen cables to CW8. However, in the statement recorded by CW8, he merely stated that the copper wires were sold by the accused. The prosecution has failed to establish that the cables allegedly stolen by the petitioner and the other accused and the copper wires recovered from CW8 are one and the same. Furthermore, the alleged incident took place on 26.02.2024, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 05.03.2024, without offering any plausible explanation for the delay.

¶26

In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶27

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3525 CRL.P No. 100022 of 2025

¶28

The impugned proceedings in CC No.1835/2024 pending on the file of the learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, is hereby quashed.

¶29

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶30

BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 187

Sri Mohammadkhalid S Goodwala S/O Sadiq Goodwale v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammadkhalid S Goodwala S/O Sadiq Goodwale v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs Vishalakshi Bhat Vs Mr Sunder Rajan M K

Shri. Latifkhan S/O. Ammerkhan Pathan Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Latifkhan S/O. Ammerkhan Pathan Vs the State of Karnataka

Suresh Alias Suri Vs the State of Karnataka

Balaji Naik S/O Late Durgappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Megharaj Alias Meghanath S/O Late Devappa Kamadoddi Vs the State of Karnataka