Karnataka High Court
Richard Noronia @ vs State Of Karnataka on 24 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6215 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. RICHARD NORONIA @
VALERIAN RICHARD NORONIA
S/O BONA NORONHA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/A MANIPALA HOUSE,
KALLAMUNDKOORU GRAMA
MANGALORE D.K - 574 26
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MOODABIDRI PS,
Digitally BENGALURU DISTRICT,
signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS
MAYAGAIAH
VINUTHA STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location: High
Court of BENGALURU- 560 001.
Karnataka
2. TERESA SEQUERA,
W/O LATE GEORGEVASA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/A MANILA/MANIPALA HOUSE,
KALLAMUNDKOORU GRAMA,
MANGALURU TALUK,
DK DISTRICT - 574227
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SOWMYA.R., HCGP FOR R1
V/O/DT:24.06.2025, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.312/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MOODABIDRI FOR THE
ALLEGED O/P/U/S 447, 323, 324, 326, 342, 354, 506 R/W 34
OF IPC REGISTERED BY 1ST RESPONDENT/MOODABIDRI PS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner-accused No.3 seeks quashing
of the proceedings in C.C.No.312/2025 arising out of Crime
No.56/1999 registered by the 1st respondent – police, pending
on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri, for the
offence punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 326, 342,
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
the petitioner-Richard Noronia @ Valerian Richard Noronia was
arraigned as accused No.3 in C.C.No.24738/2008 along with
three others. Thereafter, accused No.3 has absconded and the
case against accused No.3 was split-up and split-up charge
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
sheet was filed in C.C.No.312/2025. The offences alleged
against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections
447, 323, 324, 326, 342, 354, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner
invited my attention to the judgment dated 05.04.2006 passed
in C.C.No.106/2004 as against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in order
to point out that in view of the acquittal of the aforesaid
accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, the present petitioner who is accused
No.3 in C.C.No.106/2004 (split-up case: C.C.No.312/2025),
would be entitled to seek parity as held by this Court in the
case of Mohan Vs. State of Karnataka and Another –
Crl.P.No.5376/2024 dated 19.09.2024, in which it was
held that acquittal of co-accused by the Sessions Court would
enure to the benefit of the petitioner as under:
“The petitioner – accused No.6 is knocking at
the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling
in question a split charge sheet drawn against him
in S.C.No.96/2022 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri. Lakshmikanth K., learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025HC-KAR
Sowmya R., learned HCGP appearing for the
respondents.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
On the night of 14.02.2015, an alleged incident
leads the petitioner along with others for
registration of a crime for offences punishable under
Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC in Crime
No.306/2015. The petitioner is arrayed as accused
No.6. The police after investigation file a charge
sheet in the said matter and the concerned Court
registers S.C.No.423/2015. The petitioner – accused
No.6 at the relevant point in time was not available
for trial and therefore, the concerned Court tried the
other accused and acquitted them on the score that
the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond
all reasonable doubt. On account of non-availability
of the petitioner, the concerned Court draws up a
split charge sheet in S.C.No.96/2022 and now is
wanting to continue the trial for the aforesaid
offences.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner would also get
acquitted, if trial is permitted in the case at hand
and therefore, seeks quashment of the same on the
score of parity.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. Learned HCGP would however refute the
submissions to contend that the petitioner has
escaped trial and should not be shown any
indulgence and he should come out clean in a full
blown trial, as the other accused have come out
clean. She would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration
to the respective submissions made by the learned
counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in
dispute. The petitioner not being available for trial
at the relevant point in time is a matter of record.
Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice what is
the finding qua the acquittal of other accused by the
Court of Sessions in terms of its judgment dated
08.08.2022. The reason so rendered are as follows:
“17. No doubt, as submitted by the
learned Public Prosecutor, during the
course of cross examination of PW-1 to
3, except denial, nothing is elicited
whether there is any enmity between
these accused and PW-1 to 3 to
incriminate in this case. But, this
proceeding came to be initiated at
suomoto at their own instant. Even,
according to the case of the prosecution,
these accused were preparing for
committing dacoity in the public place at
about 9-15 pm. When such being the
case, in the absence of corroborative
evidence, by any one of the independent
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025HC-KAR
panch witness or eyewitnesses, solely
based on the evidence of these police
officers PW-1 to 3, who are the
interested witnesses, it cannot be held
that the prosecution has proved the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the prosecution has not
placed any consisting and corroborative
evidence to prove any of the alleged
charges levelled against this accused
No.4. Hence, it creates a serious doubt
about the involvement of this accused in
the alleged incident. Under all these
circumstances, in my considered view,
the prosecution has utterly failed to
prove the guilt of the accused No.4 by
producing consisting and corroborative
evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, without any alternative, the
benefit of doubt should be extended to
these accused No.4 and he is entitled for
acquittal. In view of the aforesaid
reasons, I answer point Nos. 1 and 2 in
the “Negative”
18. POINT NO.3:- In the result,
for the reasons stated above, I proceed
to pass the following:-
ORDER
The accused No.4 is found not
guilty. Hence, by acting under section
235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.4 is
hereby acquitted for the offences
punishable under sections 399 and 402
of Indian Penal Code.
The bail bond of the accused No.4
and his surety stand canceled.
The original record and also M.O.1
to 5 may be retained till disposal of the
split up case registered against accused
Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6.”
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025HC-KAR
8. The offence alleged is preparation for
commission of a dacoity, it is a collective act of all
the accused as is alleged. Therefore, the acquittal
of accused Nos.1 to 5 would undoubtedly enure to
the benefit of the petitioner, as eventually he would
get acquitted. Therefore, permitting further trial
against the petitioner for the eventuality of getting
acquitted in the light of the acquittal of accused
Nos.1 to 5 would only be a waste of precious
judicial time. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to
obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner.
9. 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 considering
identical set of facts has held as follows:
“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 reached finality. It is also
held that discharge of a co-accused by
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025HC-KAR
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:
“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.”
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. 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:
“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.”
14. 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
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
cross-examination 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
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
having taken their signatures on the
papers and contents of it were not known
to them.
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 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.
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
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.
17. 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 judgment had
been rendered based on the judgment of
Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.
18. In that view of the matter,
present proceedings initiated against
petitioner is liable to be quashed.
Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is hereby
allowed.
(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.
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.”
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.
10. In the light of there being no evidence
against any of the accused and 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 specific charge against this petitioner, that was
not charged against others, I deem it appropriate
to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. Proceedings in S.C.No.96/2022 pending before
the LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore (CCH-59), stand quashed,
qua the petitioner.”
5. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that
accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have been acquitted by the Trial Court
and consequently, by applying the doctrine of parity,
proceedings against the petitioner – accused No.3 also deserves
to be quashed.
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:22060
CRL.P No. 6215 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.312/2025 (Main case
in C.C.No.106/2024) arising out of FIR in Crime
No.56/1999 registered by the 1st respondent –
Police, pending on the file of Civil Judge and
JMFC, Moodabidri, for the offence punishable
under Sections 447, 323, 324, 326, 342, 354,
506 r/w 34 of IPC, insofar as the petitioner-
accused No.3 is concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
VM
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 30