- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11469 WP No. 8204 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 8204 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI VEDI B @ VEDIYAPPAN S/O LATE BUPADHI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.10, M S BUILDING, NEAR VEGETABLE MARKET, MOTHI NAGAR, KALASIPALYA BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THE KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. APPU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O SHANKAR R/A NO NIL, 2ND CROSS, NEAR LAL BUILDING, MOTHINAGAR, KALASIPALYA, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. SESHA KARTHIK REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11469 WP No. 8204 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITHA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0058/2025 DATED 12/03/2025 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), 191(3) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONSIDERED ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The Court has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent-State, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner, who is accused No.1, is challenging the registration of the crime under Crime No.58/2025 for offences allegedly punishable under Sections 109, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191(2), and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. The 2nd respondent lodged a First Information Report (FIR) stating that on 11.03.2025, while his brother, Arun, was walking near the water tank, some unknown persons approached him on a two-wheeler. With the intention of causing his death, they assaulted him with a machete and a helmet, specifically targeting the left side of his ear. As a result of the assault, Arun sustained grievous injuries to his left ear and left shoulder. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11469 WP No. 8204 of 2025 4. The informant, i.e., the 2nd respondent, is present before this Court and has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner (Accused No.1) was neither involved in assaulting nor abusing the injured person, Arun, on the date of the incident. He has further affirmed that there is no connection or nexus between the petitioner and the incident in question. The 2nd respondent has expressly stated that he has no objections to the quashing of the impugned FIR insofar as it relates to the petitioner (Accused No.1). 5. It is evident that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, with no specific mention of the petitioner’s name. However, in the remand application, the petitioner’s name was subsequently included and arrayed as an accused, allegedly for assaulting the informant’s brother, Arun. The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the confession statement of the co-accused, who allegedly stated that they conspired with the petitioner (Accused No.1) to assault the injured person. 6. Except for the confession statement of the co- accused, there is no direct or indirect evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner (Accused No.1) of conspiring with other accused persons to commit the assault. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11469 WP No. 8204 of 2025 7. It is a well-settled principle of law that the confession statement of a co-accused is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act unless it is corroborated by independent material evidence. Therefore, in the absence of any supporting evidence, proceeding against the petitioner solely based on the co-accused’s statement would be legally unsustainable. 8. Accordingly I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.58/2025 registered by the Kalasipalya Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 189(2), 189(4), 190, 191, 191(2), 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused-No.1 herein is hereby quashed. iii) The respondent No.1 is directed to release the petitioner-accused No.1 from the Police custody, if he is not required for any other case. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7