- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15692 CRL.P No. 1843 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1843 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MR SUNIL KUMAR G S/O GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/A NO.32, NAKSHATHRA NILAYA 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE CHIKKANANAJUNDAPPA LAYOUT KALKERE, HORAMAVU BANGALORE 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P P HEGDE ASSTS., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560001 2. GIRISHA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/A NO 49/50, SHANTHI NIVASA 3 CROSS, SOLLAPURASAMMA EXTENSION BANGALORE-560 042. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M P PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. LIKITH D, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15692 CRL.P No. 1843 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.65/2018 OF JNANABHARATHI P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF 9th ACJM, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143,144,147,148,363,341,323,307,397,506 R/W 149 OF IPC, 1860, U/S 3,25,27 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, 1959, ARISING OUT AS FAR AS THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Sri D. Likith, learned counsel files vakalath on behalf of respondent No.2 and the same is placed on record. 2. The petitioner herein who is facing investigation for the offences punishable under 143, 144, 147, 148, 363, 342, 323, 307, 397, 506(b) r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 is before this Court seeking relief. 3. The prosecution alleges that, the complainant came in contact with petitioner's wife who frequently visited the bar and restaurant along with one Thoushith, in which the complainant was working as a supplier. On 25.02.2018, wife of the petitioner visited the bar and restaurant along with Thoushith and both of them left without paying the bill. The complainant called Thoushith on his mobile phone and Thoushith informed him not to disclose that petitioner's wife had come with Thoushith for lunch. On 28.2.2018, when the complainant came in a motor cycle to collect Rs.500/- which - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15692 CRL.P No. 1843 of 2025 was due from Thoushith, at that time, 7 to 8 people came in two cars and forcibly abducted the complainant and confined him in a farm house and the said 7 to 8 persons abused the complainant and physically assaulted by saying that whether he is having an affair with the wife of petitioner. Thereafter the forced the complainant to call Thoushith and asked him to pay the bill and one Tsunami Kitti kept a knife on his thigh and threatened to stab him if he did not arrange a meeting with Thoushith and one of the person who was with Tsunami Kitti had pointed a small gun at the complainant. 4. The charge sheet was split since the petitioner had absconded, and in the split charge sheet, the trial against the other accused, was conducted by the Trial Court. The Trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5 after holding that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the material witnesses had turned hostile. 5. The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the impugned proceedings, contending that the allegations against him are identical to those made against other accused Nos.2 to 5, and that the same set of witnesses is to be examined in both cases. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 7. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the allegations against the petitioner are not distinct or separate from those made against Accused Nos. 2 to 5. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15692 CRL.P No. 1843 of 2025 8. It is a settled principle of law that when no distinct or separate allegations are made against an accused, and when co-accused facing identical allegations have been acquitted, continuing prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. In Crl.P. No. 6857/2020, a coordinate Bench of this Court held that a co-accused’s acquittal is not admissible as evidence under Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act, and thus, the benefit of acquittal cannot automatically be extended to the remaining accused. However, in that case, the acquittal was based on only two witnesses (PWs 1 and 2) turning hostile, while other key witnesses had not been examined. 10. In the present case, however, the prosecution has examined all the charge sheet witnesses and produced the relevant documents, yet failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the co-accused. 11. Given that all prosecution witnesses have been examined and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, subjecting the petitioner to investigation would be a futile exercise, as the probability of Police filing the charge sheet is remote and bleak. To prevent abuse of the process of law and maintain parity, it is appropriate to quash the impugned FIR. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15692 CRL.P No. 1843 of 2025 ii) The Impugned FIR in Crime No.65/2018 registered by the Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru, stands quashed and the petitioner-accused herein is acquitted of the offences alleged against him. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 89