- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13253 CRL.P No. 4301 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. 4301 OF 2025 BETWEEN: NAUSHAD PERNE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIM, R/AT PERNE HOUSE AND VILLAGE, BANTWALA, D,K - 574 325. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY PUTTUR RURAL P.S REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01. 2. ABOOBAKKAR SIDDIQ, S/O NAZEER, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT JOGIBETTU HOUSE, PERAJE VILLAGE, BANTWAL TQ., D.K - 574 253. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.501/2023 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.32/2019 REGISTERED BY PUTTUR RURAL P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON ADDL. CIVIL AND JMFC, PUTTUR, D.K. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13253 CRL.P No. 4301 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORDER Learned HCGP for the respondent - State. 2. The petitioner/accused No.2 who has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC is before this Court seeking a relief. 3. The prosecution alleges that on 21.02.2019, accused Nos.1 to 3, with a common intention, chased charge sheet witnesses 1 to 3 and assaulted them. Accused No.1 pulled CW.1 from the motorcycle, and accused No.2 abused him in vulgar language and assaulted him with a wooden stick. When CW.1 came to his rescue, the accused No.1 assaulted him with his leg. 4. The petitioner/accused was absconding, and therefore, the charge sheet was split-up, and the trial was conducted against accused Nos.1 and 3. The Trial Court, after appreciating the prosecution evidence, recorded a finding that the prosecution had not established the guilt of the said accused beyond all reasonable doubt and passed a judgement of acquittal dated 28.03.2024. The said judgment of acquittal has attained finality. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13253 CRL.P No. 4301 of 2025 5. The allegations against the accused No.2 and accused Nos.1 and 3 are similar and are neither distinct nor separate. The material witnesses have turned hostile, which resulted in the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 3. 6. 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. 7. It is a settled principle of law that a judgment of acquittal passed in favor of a co-accused is not per se admissible in evidence against another accused within the meaning of Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and therefore, such judgment cannot be used as substantive evidence to claim acquittal or discharge by the co-accused. This legal position has been reiterated in various judicial pronouncements, which hold that unless the acquittal is based on the same set of facts and circumstances, and all material witnesses have been examined in the earlier trial, the benefit of such acquittal cannot automatically enure to the benefit of the remaining co-accused. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13253 CRL.P No. 4301 of 2025 8. However, in the present case, all the material witnesses relied upon by the prosecution have already been examined, and it is upon appreciation of the same evidence that the co-accused has been acquitted by the competent criminal court. In view of the fact that the evidence against the petitioners is identical and no further or additional material is forthcoming against them, the judgment of acquittal rendered in favor of the co-accused becomes relevant and may be taken into consideration in light of the settled judicial precedent. 9. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, despite the acquittal of the co-accused on the basis of the same evidence, would be an abuse of the process of law and contrary to the principles of fair trial and judicial economy. ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.501/2023 on the file of Additional Civil and JMFC Puttur D.K., insofar it relates to accused No.2 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80