Ramesh a Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1698 CRL.P No. 6684 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6684 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMESH A., S/O ALEXANDER, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.42, CHAMARAJPET NEW COLONY, OPP. REMAND HOME, BANGARPET ANDERSONPET, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 113.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANIPAL POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE TAHASILDAR UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:1698 CRL.P No. 6684 of 2024

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.88/2017 (CR.NO.159/2013) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 AND 120(B)(ii) OF IPC. PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT UDUPI, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

In this petition, petitioner - accused No.2 seeks quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.88/2017 (Cr.No.159/2013) for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 120(B)(ii) of Indian Penal Code, on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM Court at Udupi.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in relation to A. Ramesh - accused No.3, under identical circumstances, in Crl.P.No.6866/2024, this Court passed the following:

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:1698 CRL.P No. 6684 of 2024

¶28

"

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

1. The petitioner (Accused No. 3) in this petition has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, and 120B(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶31

2. The prosecution alleges that candidates aspiring to the post of village accountant, following a direct recruitment process initiated on 5.6.2012, submitted fabricated marks cards. At the time of the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was not named as an accused. Accused No.1, upon being apprehended and interrogated, allegedly stated that the fabricated marks cards were obtained from the petitioner. Based solely on the confession of Accused No. 1, the petitioner was subsequently arrayed as an accused.

¶32

3. Accused individuals implicated in similar cases had approached this Court in Crl.P. Nos.103437/2022, 103438/2022, 103430/2022, and 103440/2022, along with connected petitions. A co-ordinate bench of this Court, in its order dated 24.8.2023, quashed the impugned proceedings, observing the following:

¶33

“8. A perusal of the summary of the charge sheet as reflected in Column No.17, along with the materials forming the charge sheet’s contents, does not indicate any role played by the petitioner in the fabrication of the marks cards. The allegations against the petitioner rest solely on the voluntary

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:1698 CRL.P No. 6684 of 2024

¶36

statement of Accused No. 1, who appears to have deliberately implicated the petitioner in the crime without any corroborative material. Therefore, on the solitary ground of the absence of any corroborative evidence to support Accused No. 1’s voluntary statement, the petition deserves to succeed. If the proceedings were to continue against the petitioner, it would amount to an abuse of the process of law and result in a miscarriage of justice.”

¶37

4. The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the confession statement of Accused No. 1. In the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the claim that fabricated marks cards were obtained from the petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings solely on the basis of the confession of the co-accused, which is inadmissible in law under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, would constitute an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶40

(ii)The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.83/2017, on the file of the Learned II Additional Civil Judge and CJM Court, Udupi, insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶41

"

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:1698 CRL.P No. 6684 of 2024

¶44

3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, by

¶45

applying the doctrine of parity, the impugned proceedings qua petitioner/accused No.2 also deserve to be quashed. Resultantly, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶48

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.88/2017 (Cr.No.159/2013), on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM Court at Udupi insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶49

SD/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶50

sac

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Ramesh a v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh a v. the 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Hamsaveni Vs State of Karnataka

Ms. Naima Akthar Nagaria Vs State of Karnataka

P Ramamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Thanzeer Vs State by Uppinangady Police Station

Sri C Satisha Vs Sri Venakteshmurthy T

R Lakshmakka Vs H Siddesh