- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11704 CRL.P No. 160 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 160 OF 2025 BETWEEN: HAMEED S/O A M KUNHI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT URUMANE MANJANADY VILLAGE MANGALORE-575 018. PRESENTLY R/AT AI-BIJADIYA-16252 VIA RIYADH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE VITTAL POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. 2. ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O IBRAHIM R/AT SEREKODI HOUSE BARIMARU GRAMA BANTWAL TALUK-574 219. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11704 CRL.P No. 160 of 2025 CC.NO.544/2024 BEFORE THE COURT OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA P/U/S. 504, 506, 448, 354(B), 323 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 506, 448, 354(B), 323, read with 34 of the IPC, has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that on 21.12.2021, the accused arrived in an Innova car at the residence of CW-1 and wrongfully restrained CW-1, abused her using filthy language, and that Accused No. 1 assaulted and pushed her. When CW-2 attempted to pacify the quarrel, the accused outraged her modesty, pushed her to the ground, abused her using filthy language, and assaulted her. 3. The charge sheet was split since the petitioner had absconded, and in the split charge sheet, the trial against the other accused, i.e., Accused Nos. 1 and 2, was conducted by the Trial Court. The Trial Court acquitted these accused after holding that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as the material witnesses had turned hostile. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition to quash the impugned proceedings, contending that the allegations against - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11704 CRL.P No. 160 of 2025 him are identical to those made against Accused Nos. 1 and 2, and that the same set of witnesses is to be examined in both cases. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 6. A perusal of the charge sheet material reveals that the allegations against the petitioner are not distinct or separate from those made against Accused Nos. 1 and 2. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11704 CRL.P No. 160 of 2025 10. Given that all prosecution witnesses have been examined and the prosecution failed to prove 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. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed ii) The Impugned proceedings in C.C. No.544/2024 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada, (main Case in C.C.No.1392/2022), stands quashed and the petitioner-accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences alleged against him in Crime No.37/2022, registered by the Vittal Police Station. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2