Allowed¶75

R Suresh @ Tavaka v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2026CRL.P/15462/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of split-up charge against unavailable/absconding accused after acquittal of co-accused; Sections 399 and 402 IPC (dacoity); inherent jurisdiction S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS; benefit of co-accused acquittal extended where no independent evidence; Crl.P.4796/2017 relied on; CBI v. Akhilesh Singh (AIR 2005 SCC 268), Mohammed Ilias v. State of Karnataka ((2001) 3 Kant LJ 551), State of Karnataka v. K.C.Narasegowda (ILR 2005 Kar. 1822), Deepak Rajak v. State of West Bengal ((2007) 15 SCC 305); High Court of Karnataka, M.Nagaprasanna J., order dated 06.02.2026; C.C.No.12539/2018.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.12539/2018 pending before the XXXI Addl. C.J.M at Bangalore quashed qua the petitioner. ¶75

R Suresh @ Tavaka Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7484 CRL.P No. 15462 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15462 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

R.SURESH @ TAVAKA, S/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.415, RAJARAJESWARINAGAR, D.M. PUBLIC SCHOOL, LAGGERE, BENGALURU, PIN- 560 058. (AS PER AADHAR CARD)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAGHU N.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY RAJAGOPALNAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.

¶16

SRI. V.J.MITHUN SHILPI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PSI, RAJAGOPAL NAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:7484 CRL.P No. 15462 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

PIN – 560 058.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO. 12539/2018 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. C.M.M AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 399, 402 OF IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner - accused No.7, is before this Court challenging the continuance of proceeding in C.C.No.12539/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.

¶27

Heard Sri. Raghu N.R, learned counsel appearing

¶28

for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent-State and have perused the material on record.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:7484 CRL.P No. 15462 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime along with

¶33

other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC. The petitioner at relevant point in time was not available for trial. The other accused have been tried and the concerned Court by its order dated 17.12.2024 acquits the other accused on the score that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Since the offence is of commission of dacoity under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC, the reason so rendered by the concerned Court would become applicable to the petitioner as well.

¶34

The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.4796/2017, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench while considering an identical set of facts has held as follows:

¶35

“12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that petitioner/accused was never traced and non-bailable warrant issued against him was never executed. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268 has held quashing of charge and order discharging co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations and if said judgment had

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:7484 CRL.P No. 15462 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

reached finality. It is also held that discharge of a co-accused by the High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case, is just and proper . In another ruling in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551 this Court has held as under:

¶40

“The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against other available accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge sheet.... In the instant case also, the full pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed .”

¶41

Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect:

¶42

“As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer pending nor he can close the case as he has to await appearance of the accused or the production by the State, for passing orders regarding undergoing sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. As the entire material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as he is extended for his co-accused. Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.”

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:7484 CRL.P No. 15462 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

In this background, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that not only complainant but also other witnesses including the inmates of ambulance in which they were travelling on the date of incident, had turned hostile in the proceedings which was continued against co-accused. Though, P.W.1 – complainant had admitted that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1 and had also admitted that he has given a statement identifying the accused before the Investigation Officer, he did not identify the accused persons present before Court. In fact, statements given by him as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 when confronted, he denied the same and had also denied the suggestion put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2 to P.W.8 had not identified the accused persons present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In fact, they have not even identified the statements made by them before the Investigating Officer and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their crossexamination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, taking into consideration said evidence available on record Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution would not come to their assistance . In fact, witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P-40, who were examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have also turned hostile and they have stated that police had called them a year back to the police station and when they went to the police station, they had not seen any accused persons in police station. However, they admit police having taken their signatures on the papers and contents of it were not known to them.

¶47

15 . It is in this background, trial Court on appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the accused persons by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients of provisions of the offence alleged against them. In fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to please on community of people, the Investigating Officer might have falsely implicated the accused

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:7484 CRL.P No. 15462 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be received from the public or other community people and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in the present petition is examined, it can be noticed that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner is similar, identical and in fact, it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33, who15 were tried in S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had been acquitted.

¶52

16 . In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that judgment rendered by trial Court insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is similar and identical to the charge made against the present petitioner. This Court does not find any independent or separate material having been placed by the prosecution against present petitioner to put him on trial once again and directing the petitioner-accused to undergo the order of trial, which ultimately would fetch same result as that of accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33. When allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made against present petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that they are identical, similar and inseparable in nature and no independent decision can be taken against the present petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be served even if the present petitioner is ordered to be tried by the trial Court.

¶53

In view of the afore stated facts and the law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would emerge that there would be no harm or injustice that would be caused to prosecution if benefit of acquittal order is passed in favour of accused – petitioner, since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 against whom similar allegation had been made is already acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State that petitioner should not be extended said benefit, since he is an absconder, by relying upon judgment of Coordinate Bench this Court is not inclined to accept said contention for single reason that said

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:7484 CRL.P No. 15462 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

judgment had been rendered based on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 where under Apex Court after noticing the facts obtained in the said case, had held that benefit of acquittal, should be extended to the appellant, since co-accused had been acquitted and held that a departure can be made in cases where accused has not surrendered “after conviction” in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. As such, noticing earlier position of law laid down it was held by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal of a accused for same offence on same set of facts and on similar accusations, if considered, it would entile for acquittal of co-accused also.

¶58

In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶59

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed.

¶62

(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, in Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar petitioner is concerned.

¶63

In view of criminal petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.”

¶64

(Emphasis supplied)

¶65

The Co-ordinate Bench was considering a case where the co-accused who had escaped trial had not surrendered or was not arrested by the police.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:7484 CRL.P No. 15462 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

In the light of there being no evidence against any

¶70

of the accused, the split up charge against the petitioner being tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would become an exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no evidence or a

¶71

specific charge against this petitioner, that was not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶72