- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14282 CRL.P No. 2367 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2367 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. USMAN SHARIEF @ HUSAIN SHARIEF BAVA S/O LATE B.C. BAVA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 6-69, SITE NO-78, SHAZIL MANZIL, KRISHNAPURA KATIPALLA SURATHKAL POST MANGALORE-575014. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. IMTIAZ B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARKALA RURAL PS. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. 2. ISHWAR POOJARY. S/O DOOJA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT KATTEMANE, NELLARU VILLAGE, KARKALA, UDUPI-574104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS D/W V/O DATED 20.3.2025) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN C.C NO. 236/2020 FOR THE O/P 414 OF IPC PERTAINING TO Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14282 CRL.P No. 2367 of 2025 KARKALA RURAL POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONORABLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KARKALA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is facing investigation for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of the IPC, has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 5.6.2014, accused No.6 committed the theft of cows belonging to the complainant and transported the cows and sold the same to accused No.7. 3. The petitioner-accused No.6 was absconding, the charge sheet was split up and trial was conducted against accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence, recorded a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 beyond all reasonable doubt, and passed the judgment of acquittal. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the impugned proceedings, contending that the allegations against him are identical to those made against Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 7, and that the same set of witnesses is to be examined in both cases. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14282 CRL.P No. 2367 of 2025 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 6. A perusal of the charge sheet material reveals that the allegations against the petitioner are not distinct or separate from those made against Accused No.7 and accused No.1 has been acquitted and the same had attained finality. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Even otherwise, the petitioner-accused No.6 has been implicated solely on the confession statement of accused No.1 and in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14282 CRL.P No. 2367 of 2025 prosecution of the petitioner only on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused is inadmissible in law as stated under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. 11. Given that all prosecution witnesses have been examined and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, subjecting the petitioner to trial would be a futile exercise, as the probability of conviction is remote and bleak. To prevent abuse of the process of law and maintain parity, it is appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed ii) The Impugned proceedings in C.C. No.2137/2016 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Court, at Karkala stands quashed and the petitioner-accused No.6 is acquitted of the offences alleged against him in Crime No.67/2014, registered by the Karkala Rural Police Station. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1