Karnataka High Court
Loksh @ Mulama vs State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13773 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARAYANASWAMY @ NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI CHIKKAVENKATEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8, OPP APEX BANK,
HALAGEVADERAHALLI,
R.R.NAGAR, BELAGAVI CITY
BENGALURU - 560 098
(THIS ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE
CHARGE SHEET AS WRONG)
CORRECT ADDRESS:
SRI NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O CHIKKAVENKATEGOWDA,
MOTEGOWDA, HONGANURU VILLAGE,
HONGANURU, RAMANAGARA TQ
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
PIN - 562 138.
...PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by (BY SRI. R. V. SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
CHANDANA
BM
AND:
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HALASURUGATE POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. SRI RAMAKRISHNAIAH,
S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.105, PATTANAGERE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024
HC-KAR
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.12987/2024 (HALASURUGATE POLICE IN CR.NO.285/2022)
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 463,
464, 465, 420, 471, 341, 447, 506, 120B OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing the proceedings in
C.C.No.12987/2024 arising out of FIR in Crime No.285/2022
registered by the Halasurgate Police Station, Bengaluru, pending
on the file of 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for
the offences punishable under Sections 419, 463, 464, 465, 420,
471, 341, 447, 506, 120(B) of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
petitioner – Narayanaswamy, was arraigned as accused No.8
along with 9 others, who were arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 7 and
9 & 10 in the charge sheet in C.C.No.12987/2024 pursuant to FIR
in Crime No.285/2022. The offences alleged against the petitioner
and other accused are under Sections 419, 463, 464, 465, 420,
471, 341, 447, 506, 120(B) of IPC.
4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner
invited my attention to the order dated 04.09.2023 passed in
Crl.P.No.509/2023 as against accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in order to
point out that in view of the acquittal of the aforesaid accused, the
petitioner who is accused No.8, 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.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri. Lakshmikanth K., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Smt. 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. 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.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 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
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024HC-KAR
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.”
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
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024HC-KAR
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 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.”
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:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024HC-KAR
“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
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
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024
HC-KAR
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 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
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024
HC-KAR
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.
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
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
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024
HC-KAR
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.”
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.
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024
HC-KAR
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. 2, 3 and 4 have been acquitted by this Court and
consequently, by applying the doctrine of parity, proceedings
against the petitioner – accused No.8 also deserve to be quashed.
6. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.12987/2024 arising
out of FIR in Crime No.285/2022 registered by
the 1st respondent – Police, pending on the file
of 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under
Sections 419, 463, 464, 465, 420, 471, 341,
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:20264
CRL.P No. 13773 of 2024
HC-KAR
447, 506, 120(B) of IPC insofar as the petitioner
is concerned are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
MDS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 88