Dismissed¶41

Irshad Ahamed v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025CRL.P/12430/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka (Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, 19-09-2025) dismissed CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025, which sought quashing of Spl.C.No.1090/2025 / FIR Crime No.184/2025 of Kengeri Police Station (offences u/s 351(3), 65(1), 137(2) BNS 2023 and POCSO Act) solely because the victim and her mother turned hostile at trial. Held that Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction cannot be used to short-circuit a trial after framing of charge; credibility of hostile witnesses is for the Trial Court. No precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed as devoid of merit. Petitioner stated to be at liberty to seek expeditious disposal of the case before the learned Sessions Court (crucial witnesses not yet examined) and expected to extend full cooperation for early conclusion of the trial. ¶41

Irshad Ahamed Vs State of Karnataka by — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in Spl.C.No.1090/2025 (arising out of Crime No.184/2025, Kengeri Police Station) could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the victim and the victim's mother had not supported the prosecution case in their depositions before the Trial Court.

¶29

Court's answer

The inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances; once the charge is framed and trial has commenced, the process of appreciation of evidence lies within the exclusive domain of the Trial Court.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The fact that material witnesses, including the victim and her mother, have turned hostile or not supported the prosecution cannot, by itself, be the basis for invoking inherent jurisdiction to stifle the proceedings mid-way; whether the prosecution has failed to establish the charges must be decided by the Trial Court after evaluating the entire evidence, oral and documentary.

¶33

Key takeaways

To quash proceedings at this juncture merely because key witnesses have not supported the case would amount to short-circuiting the criminal trial and substituting the appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in law.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS) — Quashing — Trial-stage hostility of victim and her mother — Proceedings in Spl.C.No.1090/2025 (Crime No.184/2025, Kengeri P.S.) for offences under Sections 351(3), 65(1), 137(2) BNS 2023 and Sections 4(2)/49(2) and 6 POCSO Act, pending before Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTSC-V, Bengaluru — Petitioner sought quashing on the ground that the victim and her mother did not support the prosecution case in their depositions — Held: (i) inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances; (ii) once the charge is framed and trial has commenced, appreciation of evidence lies within the exclusive domain of the Trial Court; (iii) material witnesses turning hostile or not supporting the prosecution cannot, by itself, be made the basis for invoking inherent jurisdiction to stifle the proceedings mid-way; whether the prosecution has failed to prove the charges must be decided by the Trial Court on the entire evidence, oral and documentary; (iv) quashing at that juncture would short-circuit the criminal trial and substitute the appreciation of evidence, impermissible in law — Petitioner at liberty to seek expeditious disposal and expected to cooperate for early conclusion of trial — Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:38085 CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12430 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

IRSHAD AHAMED S/O ALIJAN AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT 5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGARA 100 FEET ROAD, MANDYA NATIVE OF R/O VILLAGE LALPUR, POST KUNDA, TEHSIL JASPUR, LALPUR, PO KASHIPUR, DIST. UDHAM SINGH NAAR, UTTARAKHAND - 244 713.

¶8

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

(BY SMT. MADHUMALATHI S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

¶13

SHO, KENGERI P.S., BENGALURU - 560 060, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

SMT. MANOMAYA

¶15

S/O LATE MANKU BAHADDUR

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38085 CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O NO.502, BEML LAYOUT, 7TH STAGE, MYLASANDRA KENGERI, BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA - 560 060

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP OR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED FOR TIME BEING)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR NO.184/2025 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC V BENGALURU IN SPL.C NO.1090/2025 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 351(3), 65(1), 137(2) OF BNS 2023 AND U/S 4(2), 6 OF POCSO ACT.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶23

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Spl.C.No.1090/2025 arising out of Crime No.184/2025 of

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38085 CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Kengeri Police Station, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC–V, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 351(3), 65(1), 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 49(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The ground urged by the petitioner is that both the victim and the victim’s mother, in their depositions before the Trial Court, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Placing reliance on their evidence, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings.

¶30

On careful consideration, this Court is of the view that such a contention cannot be accepted. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. Once the charge is framed and trial has commenced, the process of appreciation of evidence lies within the exclusive domain of the Trial Court. The fact that certain material witnesses, including the victim and her mother, have turned hostile or have not supported the case of the

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38085 CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

prosecution, by itself, cannot be made the basis for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to stifle the proceedings mid-way. Whether the prosecution has failed to establish the charges is a matter that must be decided by the Trial Court after evaluating the entire evidence on

¶34

record, both oral and documentary.

¶35

To quash proceedings at this juncture merely because some key witnesses have not supported the case would amount to short-circuiting the criminal trial and substituting the appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in law. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to seek expeditious disposal of the case before the learned Sessions Court, particularly since the crucial witnesses have been not examined. The petitioner–accused is also expected to extend full cooperation for an early conclusion of the trial.

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:38085 CRL.P No. 12430 of 2025

¶37

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39