- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13929 CRL.P No. 4860 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4860 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. KIRANA S/O MALLESH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A NO.13-B, 8TH CROSS, OM SHAKTI NAGAR, CHUNCHAGATTA MAIN, KONANAKUNTE POST, BANGALORE - 560062 (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHAN S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYAPURA PS, BENGALURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. ARJUN C R, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, MAJOR IN AGE, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, SUBRAMANYAPURA PS, BENGALURU - 560061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13929 CRL.P No. 4860 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.5/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE LXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 399 AND 402 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT/SUBRAMANYAPURA P.S. 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-State. 2. The petitioner, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC, has approached this Court seeking relief. 3. The prosecution alleges that on 21.08.2024, while the complainant was on patrol, he received credible information that 4 to 5 persons, armed with deadly weapons, were preparing to commit dacoity with the intention of snatching cash and gold ornaments from passersby. Immediately, the complainant and his staff proceeded to the spot and observed the movements of the individuals from a distance. After confirming that the accused were preparing to commit dacoity, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13929 CRL.P No. 4860 of 2025 complainant and his staff surrounded them, recovered deadly weapons and chili powder, although one person managed to escape from the scene. 4. The charge sheet was split since the petitioner (Accused No.3) had absconded. In the split-up charge sheet, the trial against the other accused, i.e., Accused No.1, was conducted by the Trial Court in S.C. No. 308/2017. After evaluating the prosecution’s evidence, the Trial Court recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly passed a judgment of acquittal. 5. The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the impugned proceedings, contending that the allegations against him are identical to those made against Accused No.1 and that the same set of witnesses is to be examined in both cases. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 7. A perusal of the charge sheet material reveals that the allegations against the petitioner are not - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13929 CRL.P No. 4860 of 2025 distinct or separate from those made against Accused No.1. 8. It is a settled principle of law that when no distinct or separate allegations are made against an accused, and when a co-accused facing identical allegations has been acquitted, continuing prosecution against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. 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 therefore, 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. 10. 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. 11. Given that all prosecution witnesses have been examined and the prosecution has failed to prove - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13929 CRL.P No. 4860 of 2025 its case beyond a 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. 12. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed ii) The Impugned proceedings in S.C.No.5/2019 on the file of the learned LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, [CCH-66] (main Case in S.C.No.308/2017), stands quashed and the petitioner- accused No.3 is acquitted of the offences alleged against him in Crime No.480/2014, registered by the Subramanyapura Police Station. iii) The respondent No.1 and the concerned Jail Authorities, the Superintendent, Chief Prison Officer, Parappana Agrahara, Central Prison, Bengaluru are hereby directed to release the petitioner-accused No.3 herein forthwith without any delay and immediately upon a receipt of copy of this order, if he is not required for any other cases, if any. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13929 CRL.P No. 4860 of 2025 iv. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No.1, and the concerned Jail Authorities forthwith without any delay through e-mail and telephonically Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 4 Sl No.: 22