- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12832 CRL.P No. 2784 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2784 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. IBRAHIM @ MOHAMMED IBRAHIM KALEEL S/O AHMED, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO 2-431, SUNKA SALAE HOUSE, MARAVOOR ROAD, BAJPE VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK, D K DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. IMITIAZ B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BAJPE P S 2. LAWRENCE PINTO S/O SEBASTIAN PINTO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT GREEN HOUSE, PARANGIPALLA KOLAMBE VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK D K DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 D/W) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN LPC NO. 20/2018 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 135/2005 FOR THE O/P/U/S 379, 511 OF IPC, PERTAINING TO BAJPE POLICE Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12832 CRL.P No. 2784 of 2025 STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONORABLE COURT II JMFC AT MANGALORE. 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 - accused No.1, who sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 511 of IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner - accused had tried to commit theft of cattle of CW1 on 4.8.2005. The charge sheet was split up and the trial was conducted against accused No.2. The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence tendered by the prosecution recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused No.2 beyond all reasonable doubt, and passed the judgment of acquittal. 3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined the complainant as PW1, and he turned hostile, and the only witness to the seizure mahazar supported the case of the prosecution. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12832 CRL.P No. 2784 of 2025 4. It is settled law that when there are no separate and distinct allegations made against the petitioner herein and other accused person, and when other accused is acquitted, it would amount to abuse of process of law, if the prosecution is ordered to be continued against the petitioner. 5. It is also settled law that the judgment of acquittal of co-accused would not be admissible within the meaning of Section 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the co- accused. But the said proposition of law is applicable when the material witnesses have not been examined. In the instance, the complainant who had alleged that the accused attempted to commit theft turned hostile. 6. The Trial Court acquitted accused No.2 on the ground that the prosecution did not establish that the said accused attempted to commit theft of cattle. It would be futile exercise, if the petitioner is subjected to trial since, the probability of his conviction is remote and bleak. So as to prevent the abuse of process of law and to maintain parity, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12832 CRL.P No. 2784 of 2025 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in LPC.No.20/2018 arising out of Crime No.135/2005 registered by the Bajpe PS, pending on the file of the learned II JMFC at Mangalore, insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused No.1, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2