- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16042 CRL.P No. 3893 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3893 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. JABIULLA @ JABEE S/O. JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT JNANA MANDIR SCHOOL, 8TH CROSS, KANAKANAGAR, YELACHENAHALLI POST, BENGALURU CITY 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KULKARNI ABDUL RASHEED SIKANDER SAB., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CCB (OCW), SQUAD, N.T. PETE, BENGALURU - 560 002. (SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SHRI M.S. POORNACHANDRA TEJASWI, (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) AGE MAJOR, POLICE INSPECTOR, CCB (OCW), N.T. PETE, BENGALURU 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16042 CRL.P No. 3893 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED -2, IN SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION CRIME NO.16/2013 (C.C NO.8829/2017) FOR THE ALLEGED O/P/U/S 120B, 399, 402 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL.METROPOLITAN JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No. 1. 2. The petitioner (accused No. 2), who is facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 399, and 402 of the IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 3. The prosecution alleges that on 24.01.2013 at about 4:15 p.m., C.W.1 M.N. Poornachandra Tejaswi of CCB, N.T. Pet Police Station, while at the office, received credible information that near the Kalyani located at Lalbagh Siddapur Road, Jayanagar 1st Block, the brother of one Diwan Ali—namely, Khadir (A-1)—along with his companions, had arrived in a Maruti Van bearing registration No. KA-03-M-3251, armed with deadly weapons such as a machu, long, and knives, with an - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16042 CRL.P No. 3893 of 2025 intent to commit the murder of Kulla Nawaz and Auto Saleem, and to rob valuables from them. He immediately secured panchas to the office, informed them about the accused’s preparations to commit dacoity, and proceeded to the scene along with his staff and the panchas. At about 5:15 p.m., they observed 7–8 individuals in the van, seemingly planning to commit offences such as murder and dacoity. The police then surrounded the accused persons and arrested accused No. 2 Jabiyulla, accused No. 3 Nijamuddin, and accused No. 4 Hidayathulla Chand, while five other accused escaped from the scene. 4. Upon interrogation, the arrested accused revealed that under the leadership of accused No. 1 Mohammad Khadir, preparations were being made to rob Kulla Nawaz and Auto Saleem. They also named the absconding accused as Khabeer, Sadiq, Thanveer @ Thanu, Basheer, and Yasin. During a search, the police recovered one machu, one long, a knife, and a packet of chilli powder. C.W.1 conducted the seizure panchanama, seized the articles, and brought the accused along with the seized items to the police station. He then lodged a complaint before the SHO of Siddapura Police Station, who registered the case in Cr. No. 16/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 399, and 402 of the IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16042 CRL.P No. 3893 of 2025 5. The charge sheet against the petitioner (accused No. 2) was split up. The Trial Court conducted the trial against the other accused, and after appreciating the evidence tendered by the prosecution, recorded a finding that the prosecution had not established the guilt of the co-accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the learned LXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, passed a judgment of acquittal dated 15.05.2025 in Sessions Case No. 1189/2013. The charges against accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 9 are not distinct or separate from one another. 6. 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, continuation of prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 7. In Crl.P. No. 6857/2020, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the acquittal of co-accused is not admissible as evidence under Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, and therefore the benefit of acquittal cannot automatically be extended to the remaining accused. However, in that case, the acquittal was solely based on PWs 1 and 2 turning hostile, while other key witnesses were not examined. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16042 CRL.P No. 3893 of 2025 8. In the present case, however, the prosecution has examined all the charge sheet witnesses and produced the relevant documents. Yet, it failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the co-accused. 9. In light of the above, when the co-accused have been acquitted after full appreciation of the evidence from all material witnesses, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 8829/2017 pending on the file of the learned I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the petitioner (accused No. 2), are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 178