Allowed

Sri. Nagaraja. P (A-1) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026CRL.P/16441/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner. The court held that since the prosecution failed to prove the case against an acquitted co-accused on similar facts, continuation of the trial would be wasteful.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and the impugned proceedings in S.C.No.1111/2025 stands quashed qua the petitioner.

Sri. Nagaraja. P (A-1) Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6800 CRL.P No. 16441 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16441 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI NAGARAJA. P., (A-1) S/O LATE N.PERUMAL, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT. NO.47/1, B.M.RANGASWAMY BUILDING, OPP.:NEW PETROL BUNK, BETTADASANAPURA, BEGUR, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 068. (ADDRESS MENTIONED AS PER AADHAAR CARD)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SHIVANANDA REDDY R.V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYANAGARA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶15

SHEKHAR PANDURANGA TOUKER, S/O PANDURANGA RAO TOUKER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:6800 CRL.P No. 16441 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

R/AT: NAIDU BUILDING, LAKSHMI ROAD, 36^TH CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SC.NO.1111/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 62^nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-63); FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 427, 109, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question continuance of proceedings in S.C.No.1111 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 427, 109, 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶27

Heard Sri Shivananda Reddy R.V., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri K Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:6800 CRL.P No. 16441 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Brief facts, germane, are as follows:

¶32

The petitioner is accused no. 1. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime for the aforesaid offences along with other accused. At the relevant point in time, the petitioner was not available for trial. The other accused were tried. The concerned Court, by its order dated 18-09-2008, acquits accused no. 2 of

¶33

the said crime in which the petitioner was accused no. 1. The petitioner, as observed, was not available for trial. Therefore the concerned Court draws up a separate charge against the present petitioner/accused no. 1 in SC No.1111 of 2025 and is now wanting to continue the proceedings as against him.

¶34

The petitioner is before the Court on the score that he was not aware of the proceedings that were going on and therefore was not able to appear before the Court. The concerned Court, by the following order, has held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The relevant portion of the order dated 18-09-2008 passed in S.C.No.436 of 2004, as against accused No.2 reads as follows:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:6800 CRL.P No. 16441 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

“….

¶39

It is pertinent to note in this case that, CW.1Shekhar is the complainant and he is said to be an author of the complaint-Ex.P3, but his presence is not secured. On perusal of the complaint of CW.1-Shekhar, in which he has stated that, accused No.1-Nagaraj along with one person came to the shop, and made an attempt to assault PW-2 by means of chopper and knife, and at that time, Boregowda has escaped and came to Wonder Land Shop and he was followed by him and he came to know that, the person who has assaulted Boregowda is Srinivasamurthy i.e., accused No.2 in this case. PW-2 in his evidence before the court has stated that, accused No.2-Seena has assaulted by means of knife on his left rib. Thus, there is a contradiction in the evidence of PW-1 and the complaint of CW. 1-Shekhar. Because as per the complaint, accused No.1-Nagaraj has assaulted PW-2 by means of knife, and accused No.2-Srinivasa has assaulted by means of chopper, but the evidence of PW-2 is contradictory to it and according to him accused No.2Srinivasa has assaulted him by means of knife. Thus, the evidence of PW-2, who is injured, does not corroborate the contents of complaint of CW. 1-Shekhar, and also regarding alleged incident. Apart from that, PW-2 in the cross-examination in page No.7, he has stated that on the date of incident, at about 3:00-3:30 p.m. when accused No.1 came to shop, at that time, accused No.2 was not present. Thus, taking into account that, the evidence of PW-2 who is injured is quite contrary to the contents of complaint given by CW-1-Shekhar, and the presence of CW-1 is not secured inspite of repeated process issued against him, and his whereabouts was not known, and also taking into account that, the alleged eye witnesses namely PW-5, 6, 7 and 9 have not supported the prosecution case. Hence, I am of the conclusion that, the prosecution from the evidence on record has failed to prove the case against accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt, and also I am of the conclusion that, the evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold that, the prosecution has proved the case against accused No.2 and accordingly, I answer Point No.1 to 3 in the negative.

¶40

POINT NO.4 : In view of my findings on Point No. 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:6800 CRL.P No. 16441 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.2 is acquitted for the offences punishable u/s.341, 427, 307 r/w.34 of IPC.;

¶46

Bail bond executed by accused stands cancelled.

¶47

MO-1 to 4 be returned to the SHO, Jayanagar Police Station, after appeal period is over, with a direction to produce the same along with split charge sheet to be filed against accused No.1 & 3.

¶48

Office is directed to preserve the original file till the disposal of split up case to be filed against accused No.1 & 3.”

¶49

In that light the petitioner also becomes entitled to the relief of acquittal as is passed in favour of the accused no. 2. If the prosecution has failed miserably to prove the case as against accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt and the allegation against accused No.1 is also similar, it cannot be that accused No.1, the present petitioner gets convicted, while the accused No. 2 has been acquitted.

¶50

Though no indulgence should be shown to persons who have escaped trial, the issue is on an eventuality and acquittal being the eventuality in the case at hand, if trial of the present petitioner is permitted, it would become wastage of precious

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:6800 CRL.P No. 16441 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

judicial time. Only to save the precious judicial time, this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, deems it fit to obliterate the crime against the

¶55

petitioner/accused No.1.

¶56

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶59

(ii) Impugned proceedings in S.C.No.1111/2025 pending on the file of 62^nd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru stands quashed qua the petitioner.

¶60

Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands disposed.

¶61

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶62

BKP

¶63

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Sri. Nagaraja. P (A-1) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nagaraja. P (A-1) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Gopal Reddy N Alias Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramakrishna. T. H. Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr Usharani N Vs State of Karnataka

H.S Kathyayini Vs B Lakshmeesh

Smt Pushpa Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rajanna J Vs M/S Fortitude Constructions