Vishnu Alias Krishnaji Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vishnu Alias Krishnaji Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No. 682/2016 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwara, insofar as the petitioners - accused Nos. 32 to 35 - are concerned.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners (accused Nos. 32 to 35), arising out of the same incident (Crime No. 79/2015, Laxmeshwar P.S.), deserve to be quashed in parity with the earlier orders by which proceedings against identically placed co-accused were quashed in Criminal Petition Nos. 101379/2016 c/w 101037/2019 and 101592/2019.

Court's answer

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 682/2016 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwara are quashed insofar as the petitioners - accused Nos. 32 to 35 - are concerned.

Ratio / Principle

Because the petitioners (accused Nos. 32 to 35) are similarly situated to the accused whose proceedings were already quashed in Criminal Petition Nos. 101379/2016 c/w 101037/2019 and 101592/2019, the present petition deserves to be disposed of in accordance with those orders so as to maintain parity.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order of a Single Judge (Venkatesh Naik T), High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, allowing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS, 2023) filed by accused Nos. 32 to 35 seeking quashing of proceedings arising out of Crime No. 79/2015 of Laxmeshwar P.S. Held: since the petitioners are similarly situated to other accused whose proceedings in the same matter were already quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 101379/2016 c/w Criminal Petition No. 101037/2019 (order dated 13.07.2022) and by the Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No. 101592/2019 (qua accused Nos. 11, 26, 37, 38, 39, 54 and 55), parity required the like disposal; accordingly, the proceedings in C.C. No. 682/2016 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwara were quashed insofar as accused Nos. 32 to 35. The observations reproduced at paragraphs 16-17 of the 13.07.2022 order (on split-up charge sheets under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and trial of all accused of one incident by the Special Court when SC/ST(POA) Act offences are involved) are quotations from the earlier Co-ordinate Bench order, not holdings of this Court.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7831 CRL.P No. 101713 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101713 OF 2025 (482 OF CR.PC/528 OF BNSS)

BETWEEN:

VISHNU @ KRISHNAJI S/O. THUKARAMAPPA KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: RETD. HEAD CONSTABLE, R/O. NARAGUNDA-582207, NOW R/O. BALEHOSUR, TQ. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG-582116.

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

ASHOK S/O. TUKARAMAPPA KATTIMANI, S/O. TUKARAMAPPA KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. EWS 754, 18TH CROSS, NAVANAGARA, HUBBALLI-580025.

ANANT S/O. TUKARAMAPPA KATTIMANI, S/O. TUKAKAMAPPA KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. BASTIBANA AREA, LAKSHMESHWAR, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-582116.

RAGHAVENDRA S/O. TUKAKAMAPPA KATTIMANI, S/O. THUKARAMAPPA KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: LECTURE IN BGS PU COLLEGE, THOTAGERE, RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7831 CRL.P No. 101713 of 2025

HC-KAR

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560090, NOW R/O. BALEHOSUR, TQ. LAXMESHWAR, DIST. GADAG-582116.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY LAXMESHWAR POLICE, GADAG DIST-582116, REP. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH.

POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, LAXMESHWAR POLICE, GADAG DISTRICT-582116 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDD, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE-SHEET DATED 18.12.2024 IN CR.NO. 79/2015 LAXMESHWAR P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427, 109 R/W 149 OF IPC AND INITIATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN S.C NO. 06/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427, 109 R/W. 149 OF IPC SO FAR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 32 TO 35 ARE CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7831 CRL.P No. 101713 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the respondents.

Heard Sri. Mahesh Wodeayar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned HCGP for the respondents.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.682/2016 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwara for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC.

The very same proceedings were impugned by the other accused in Criminal Petition No.101379/2016 c/w Criminal Petition No.101037/2019, whereby this Court by order dated 13.07.2022 has quashed the proceedings therein, wherein at paragraph Nos.16 and 17 has held as follows:

“16. Section 173 of Cr.P.C. does not contemplate for filing such split up charge sheets only on the ground that some persons are not responsible for few offences. It

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7831 CRL.P No. 101713 of 2025

HC-KAR

is always open for the Investigating Officer to find out who is responsible for which of the offences and what offences are to be mentioned in the report and in column No.17 of the report, Investigating agency has to detail out the offences said to have been committed by each of the accused separately and distinctly.

17. Since the prosecution has invoked Section 149 of IPC, it may also group up the accused persons who are responsible for the incident and file appropriate final report. Instead of carrying out such an exercise, Investigating Officer has chosen to file three separate repots which is impermissible. Further, it is settled principles of law that even if IPC offences are available and if the persons are responsible to be proceeded, since the incident is arising out of Crime No.79/2015, the other accused against whom the SC/ST(POA) Act offences are not alleged, are also to be tried by the Special Court as it is arising out of one and the same incident. Accordingly, filing of separate three reports in unwarranted.”

Based on the observations made in the

aforementioned petitions, the Co-ordinate Bench, in Criminal Petition No.101592/2019, also quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.11, 26, 37, 38, 39, 54, and 55. In the present case, the petitioners — accused Nos.32 to 35 — are similarly situated. Therefore, to maintain parity, this petition also deserves to be disposed of in accordance with the orders

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7831 CRL.P No. 101713 of 2025

HC-KAR

passed in Criminal Petition No. 101379/2016 read with Criminal Petition No.101037/2019 and Criminal Petition

No.101592/2019.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 682/2016, pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Laxmeshwara, insofar as petitioners – accused Nos.32 to 35, are hereby quashed.

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

RSH /CT-AN LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45