Thoufique Shareef Vs the State

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:10053 WP No. 6359 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6359 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

- THOUFIQUE SHAREEF AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O NATHAR SHARIFF, RESIDING AT 6^TH CROSS, SANTHOSH NAGAR, HEMMADI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 230.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE

¶13

BY SHO, KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THASIM BANU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, W/O NAYAZ SHARIFF, D/O MOULANA MOHAMMED HASHIM, JAMIA MOHALLA, GANGOLLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI-576 216.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R-1)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CRPS PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPLIT-UP CASE CC NO. 832/2024 PRODUCED

¶19

Corrected vide court order dated 08.09.2025

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10053 WP No. 6359 of 2025

¶21

AT ANNEXURE-A, AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA, (MAIN CASE IN CC NO.693/2019 CRIME NO.147/2019 OF KUNDAPURA PS) REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 504, 506, 323 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS LIST, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner-accused, who is the brother-inlaw of the de facto complainant, is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. He has approached this Court seeking relief.

¶26

The prosecution alleges that the petitioneraccused, along with the other accused, namely accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 (the complainant’s husband, parentsin-law, and sister-in-law), subjected the de facto complainant to both mental and physical cruelty and also demanded money from her parental home.

¶27

Since the petitioner-accused had absconded, the charge sheet was split up, and the Trial Court conducted proceedings in C.C. No. 693/2019 against the complainant’s husband, parents-in-law, and sister-in-law.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:10053 WP No. 6359 of 2025

¶30

The Trial Court acquitted these accused after holding that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the material witnesses turned hostile.

¶31

The petitioner has now filed this petition to quash the impugned proceedings, contending that the allegations against him are identical to those made against accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, and that the same set of witnesses is to be examined in both cases.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

¶33

Perusal of the charge sheet material reveals that the allegations against the petitioner are not distinct or separate from those made against accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6.

¶34

It is a settled principle of law that when no distinct or separate allegations are made against an accused and when co-accused facing identical allegations have been acquitted, continuing prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶35

In Crl.P. No. 6857/2020, a coordinate Bench of this Court held that a co-accused’s acquittal is not admissible as evidence under Sections 40 to 44 of the

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:10053 WP No. 6359 of 2025

¶38

Evidence Act, and thus, the benefit of acquittal cannot automatically be extended to the remaining accused. However, in that case, the acquittal was based on only two witnesses (PWs 1 and 2) turning hostile, while other key witnesses had not been examined.

¶39

In the present case, however, the prosecution has examined all the charge sheet witnesses and produced the relevant documents, yet failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the co-accused.

¶40

Given that all prosecution witnesses have been examined, and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, subjecting the petitioner to trial would be a futile exercise, as the probability of conviction is remote and bleak. In order to prevent the abuse of the process of law and to maintain parity, it is appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings.

¶41

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i) The petition is allowed

¶44

ii) The Impugned proceedings in C.C.

¶45

No.832/2024 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Kundapura, (main Case in C.C.No.693/2019), stands quashed and the petitioner-accused No.1 is

¶46