- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13042 CRL.P No. 4114 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. 4114 OF 2025 BETWEEN: ABDUL KHADAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE MOIDIN KUNHI, PERMANENT R/OF SHETTYBETTU HOUSE, KANYANA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST - 574143 PRESENTLY WORKING AT VILLA NO. 222, MOHAMMAD BIN ZAYED CITY ZONE-13, ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUSHALAPPA B M., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH VITTLA POLICE REPTD BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001. 2. MR. ABDUL HAKEEM SON OF KUNHI BYARI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT AZVEENA MANZIL, KULALKODI, KOLNADU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. - 574323 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.N.ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS DISPENSED VIDE ORDER DATED 27.3.25) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13042 CRL.P No. 4114 of 2025 C.C.NO.465/2013 (LPC NO.14/2021) REGISTERED IN CR.NO.198/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C BANTWAL, D.K BEING TRIED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 448,323,324,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC REGISTERED AND CONTINUED SO AS IT PERTAINS TO AND AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 HEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Accused No.2, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 324, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’), is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The Learned High Court Government Pleader appears for Respondent No.1 – State. Service of notice to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 3. The prosecution alleges that on 13.12.2012, Accused Nos.1 and 2, with the intention to commit an offence, criminally trespassed into the house of CW3. Accused No.1 allegedly grabbed CW1 by his collar, assaulted him by slapping his cheek, abused him with filthy language, and issued life threats. Accused No.2 allegedly assaulted CW1 with a rod on his head and hand, causing him simple injuries. Since Accused No.2 was absconding, the charge sheet was split, and the trial proceeded against Accused No.1. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13042 CRL.P No. 4114 of 2025 4. After appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had not established the guilt of Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt and passed a judgment of acquittal in CC No.909/2015. The judgment of acquittal, dated 04.06.2019, has attained finality. 5. 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. 1. 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, continuing 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 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. 8. 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. 9. Given that all prosecution witnesses have been examined and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13042 CRL.P No. 4114 of 2025 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. ORDER i) Criminal petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.465/2013 (LPC No.14/2021) on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, insofar it relates to accused No.2 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32