Dismissed

Smt Moksha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026CRL.P/5144/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, Smt. Moksha, sought to quash criminal proceedings pending against her in C.C. No. 3351/2015 for offences under Sections 420/34 IPC, arguing that a full trial in a related case (C.C. No. 393/2006) had already acquitted co-accused persons, rendering a de novo trial futile. The State opposed, stating the petitioner was absconding during the earlier trial and a split-up charge-sheet was filed against her; no evidence had been led against her. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquittal of co-accused does not bar trial of an accused who was not part of that trial. The Court directed the trial to conclude within six months, permitting the prosecution to use already recorded evidence where applicable.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; trial directed to be concluded within six months.

Smt Moksha Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:50792 CRL.P No. 5144 of 2019

¶2

¶3

CNR: KAHC010206672019

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5144 OF 2019

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. MOKSHA, D/O VINOD KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT SANDPITS GARDEN, BENGRE, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575010.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. YATHIN B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTA POLICE STATION , KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

SRI. VIJAYA MANGALA TANDELA, S/O MANGALA TANDELA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KODIKANYANA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576226.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.08.2026, R2 IS SERVED)

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:50792 CRL.P No. 5144 of 2019

¶21

¶22

CNR: KAHC010206672019

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3351/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUNDAPURA, ARISING OUT OF P.C.NO.409/2005 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1/State.

¶28

2. This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3351/2015, pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kundapura, arising out of P.C.No.409/2005 and now transferred to the First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, in C.C.No.1065/2023, for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC.

¶29

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is absolutely no material

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50792 CRL.P No. 5144 of 2019

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CNR: KAHC010206672019

¶33

whatsoever to proceed against the petitioner. The learned counsel would contend that in full-fledged trial in C.C.No.393/2006, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and the Court has passed the judgment disbelieving the case of the prosecution holding that the materials are insufficient to hold the accused guilty and conducting de novo trial against the petitioner would be an exercise in futility and hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶34

4. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1/State would submit that this petitioner is accused No.1 in original C.C.No.3351/2015 and he was absconding and hence, split-up charge-sheet has been filed against this petitioner and he was not subjected for trial. The counsel would submit that the trial was conducted only in respect of other accused persons and witnesses were examined in respect of the accusation made against the other accused

¶35

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:50792 CRL.P No. 5144 of 2019

¶38

CNR: KAHC010206672019

¶39

persons and in respect of this accused is concerned, no evidence was led and hence, the accused has to be tried before the Trial Court for the offence.

¶40

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1/State, the learned counsel for the petitioner not disputes the fact that the matter is pending before the Court and submits that date is fixed for 26.12.2026. When split-up charge-sheet was filed and NBW was also issued against the petitioner, who was not the part of trial before the Trial Court acquitting the other accused persons cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings in favour of the petitioner. The evidence led in respect of other accused persons is only limited to the evidence of those accused persons who have faced the trial. But no evidence is led in respect of this petitioner. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that continuing of the proceedings against the

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50792 CRL.P No. 5144 of 2019

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

CNR: KAHC010206672019

¶44

petitioner is futile, cannot be accepted. However, the prosecution is given liberty to consider the evidence already available before the Court, but in respect of the accusation and charges levelled against this petitioner is concerned, to take a call to place on record the evidence and let the Trial Judge dispose of the matter, minimizing the trial, in a time bound period within a span of six months.

¶45

6. With these observations, the petition is

¶46

dismissed. The respective parties and their counsel are directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the matter within time bound period.

¶47

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Smt Moksha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Moksha 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