- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12346 CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4773 OF 2024 BETWEEN: KARTHIK, S/O LATE NANJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A JILAKARAPALLI VILLAGE, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207. …PETITIONER AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY BAGEPALLI POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE - 01. 2. L.N. CHETHAN KUMAR, S/O LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, WORK IN INDIAN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., DAVANAGERE, R/A KSRTC DIPO ROAD, BAGEPALLI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN C.C.NO.953/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT BAGEPALLI WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE- A WHICH IS REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 324, 307, 435, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12346 CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent - State. Service of notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 2. The petitioner/accused No.1 who is facing trial for the offences punishable under section 324, 307, 435, 504 read with Section 34 IPC is before this court seeking relief. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2019, when CW.1 was proceeding in a two- wheeler near DVG road, Bagepalli, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 with previous grudges followed by CW.1 with an intention to kill him. They surrounded CW.1, abused him in filthy language, and accused No.1 tried to stab him with a knife on his chest and stomach with an intention to kill him. At that time CW.1, try to avoid stabbing, the knife injured his left hand causing simple injuries. 4. Since accused No.1 was absconding, the charge sheet was split up, and the trial proceeded only against accused Nos.2 and 3. After appreciating the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12346 CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024 evidence and record, the trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused Nos.2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly passed a judgment of acquittal. 5. The charges against accused No.1 are substantially similar to those against accused Nos.2 and 3, with the material distinction being the specific allegation that accused No.1 attempted to murder the complainant. When the complainant sought to escape, he sustained a knife injury to his left hand. The complainant subsequently turned hostile and completely denied the occurrence of the alleged incident during trial proceedings. 6. It is a well-settled principle that any confession made by an accused while in police custody is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless corroborated by material evidence substantiating the allegations against the accused. Furthermore, an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on a confession statement. 7. It is settled law that when there are no separate and distinct allegations made against the petitioner herein and other accused person, and when - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12346 CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024 other accused is acquitted, it would amount to abuse of process of law, if the prosecution is ordered to be continued against the petitioner. 8. It is also settled law that the judgment of acquittal of co-accused would not be admissible within the meaning of Section 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act and as such the benefit of acquittal cannot be extended to the co-accused. But the said proposition of law is applicable when the material witnesses have not been examined.In the instance, the injured witness was examined and he turned hostile. 9. On the ground that the complainant has turned hostile, and the prosecution has failed to establish either the sustaining of injuries by the complainant or any attempt to commit murder, and the probability of conviction appears remote and bleak if the petitioner were subjected to trial, it would be just and appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. ORDER i. Accordingly, petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12346 CRL.P No. 4773 of 2024 ii. The impugned proceedings in SC No.10/2021 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, insofar it relates to petitioner/accused No.1 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT: BHK