Mr. Chandrahasa Keshava Shetty, Vs the State of Karnataka

MR. CHANDRAHASA KESHAVA SHETTY S/O KESHAVA @ KESHAVA DAASU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT DEVI KRUPA, KARAMBITHLU, PADUPANAMBOORU POST, HALEYANGADI, MANGALURU-574 146.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE (P/H))

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MULKY P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

SRI. H. ISUBU AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O MOMMADU BYARI, HALEYANGADI GRAMA, MULKI-574 154.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1(P/H))

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:42885 CRL.P No. 13540 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF CRIME NO.6/1999 AND TRIAL COURT RECORDS; ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.361/2025 ARISING OUT L.P.C.NO.10/2017 (C.C.NO.1844/1999 AND C.C.NO.1467/2020) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MOODBIDRI, DAKSHINA KANNADA INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2025 REMANDING THE PETITIONER, FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.6/1999 REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT MULKI P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 436, 427 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1, 2 AND 3.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner has preferred this petition seeking to quash

¶27

the entire criminal proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.361/2025 (LPC.No.10/2017) on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Moodabidri.

¶28

Quashing of the proceedings is sought on the ground that similarly placed all other accused are acquitted by the trial Court due to lack of evidence. Copy of the judgment passed in Sessions Case No.8/2001 dated 01.12.2001 is produced as document No.5.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:42885 CRL.P No. 13540 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

It is the case of prosecution that on the night of

¶33

31.12.1998 at about 07:30 p.m., a mob consisting of more than 100 persons, armed with dangerous weapons, came near the shop of the complainant, set fire to his shop and robbed the articles, resulting in loss to him to the tune of Rs.3.5 lakhs.

¶34

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was not aware of the criminal case registered against him and as no summons were received, he did not appear before the trial Court and now he has been arrested under warrant and detained in prison since 30.08.2025.

¶35

FIR was registered in Crime No.6/1999 at Mulki Police Station on 02.01.1999 against unknown persons, for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 435, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC. Charge sheet came to

¶36

be filed against 42 accused, wherein, the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.34. It is not in dispute that the trial conducted against 40 accused has been ended in

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42885 CRL.P No. 13540 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

acquittal. I have perused the judgment passed by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.8/2001 and the evidence of the complainant examined as P.W.1. He has categorically stated that at the time of incident there were 400-500 persons and he has not seen the person who has set fire to his shop. The Sessions Court has taken into consideration the evidence of the relevant witnesses namely PW.1 to PW.5 and after assigning reasons, has acquitted the accused who faced trial.

¶40

6. In 'Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi V/s. State of

¶41

Gujarat' reported in 2023 INSC 829 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at Paragraph No.15 as under:

¶42

"When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42885 CRL.P No. 13540 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination."

¶46

The evidence against the accused who faced trial and the petitioner herein, who is arraigned as accused No.34 in the charge sheet, is one and the same. There cannot be any other evidence or materials which can be brought before the Court against the petitioner. The complainant has categorically stated that there were about 400 to 500 persons at the time of incident and he has not identified the person who has set fire to his shop etc. Hence, no purpose will be achieved in continuing the proceedings now pending against the petitioner. Continuation of the same is an abuse of process of law. Hence, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) Petition is allowed .

¶49

ii) The entire proceedings are quashed as against

¶50

the petitioner/accused No.1 in the spilt-up case in C.C.No.361/2025 (LPC.No.10/2017) (C.C.No.1844/1999

¶51