- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10427 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SURESH S/O LATE RAVINDRA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.80, 11TH MAIN, NEAR ARALI TREE, SOLLAPURADAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU-560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SWATHI R BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. PRASANNA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, W/O. LATE. VENKATESH, R/AT. NO 5TH CROSS, GADDEBAYALU, HEROHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL TALUK-560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.203/2018 (CR.NO.222/2011) OF THE TAVAREKERE P.S, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 AGAINST ACCUSED NO.4 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 395 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE Ist ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in S.C.No.203/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.208/2013 has pointed out that the other co-accused, who were tried for identical allegations and on the very same set of evidence, have been acquitted by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.12.2019. It is submitted that the substratum of the prosecution case having failed in earlier trial, there remains no independent material to continue - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 proceedings against the present petitioner. Placing reliance on the said judgment of acquittal and further relying upon the view taken by the coordinate Bench in cases of similar nature, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade this Court to demonstrate that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law. 3. This Court deems it fit to extract the relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.208/2013. The same is extracted as under: ”Point No.1: 9. P.W.1 is ASI of Tavarekere police station from 28-02-2011 to 15-12-2015. He deposed in his evidence in chief examination to the effect that on 01-06-2011 at about 10.00 p.m. while he was in police station as SHO at that time C.W.1 Jayalakshmi came and submitted written complaint and after perusal of the same he Police station Cr.No.222/2011 for the offences punishable U/s 448, 342, 384 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. Further P.W.1 stated that he prepared FIR and sent FIR along with original complaint to court through P.C-259 and sent copies of the same to his higher officers. Further P.W.1 stated that he handed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 over the case papers for further investigation to C.W.15 PSI Ashok. Further P.W.1 identified his signature in Ex.P.1 complaint which is marked as Ex.P.1(a). Further P.W.1 identified his signature in Ex.P.2 FIR. So P.W.1 in his evidence in chief examination stated that C.W.1 submitted written complaint as per ExP.1 and he had registered the same and handed over the case for further investigation to C.W.15 PSI. 10. It is suggested to P.W.1 in his cross examination by Advocate for accused that C.W.1 had simply put her signature upon Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.1 complaint has been written in police station itself. P.W.1 denied the said suggestion. But P.W.1 in his cross examination stated that no reasons are assigned in the complaint for delay caused in lodging the complaint. Further P.W.1 admitted in the cross examination that in Ex.P.2 value of the property has not been mentioned at column No.10. Further it is elicited in cross examination of P.W.1 that Ex.P.1 & P.2 have been sent to court on 02- 06-2011 at 10.00 a.m. through court P.C. 11. Anyway, looking to evidence of P.W.1 stated supra it appears that there is abnormal delay in lodging complaint with regard to alleged incident in this case and no reasons are assigned in Ex.P.1 complaint why the delay has been caused in lodging the complaint about the alleged incident in this case. As per Ex.P.1 complaint, incident has occurred on 11-5-2011 but complaint has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 been lodged on 01-06-2011. So there is 21 days delay in lodging the complaint. 12. Further it is to be noted here that in this case C.W.1 to 3 are most material witness to say about the alleged incident of this case. But said C.W.1 to 3 have not at all come before the court to give their evidence about the incident. The prosecution has failed to adduce the evidence of C.W.1 to 3 even after giving sufficient opportunity to lead their evidence. This fact coupled with delay of 21 days in lodging the complaint regarding incident case doubt upon the prosecution case. 13. P.W.2 is Sukan Kumar S/o Tulasi Ram. He deposed in his evidence in chief examination stated that since last 10 years he is having Pawn Broker Shop by name Kamalesh Bankers and Enterprises in Sanjeevini Nagar Main Road. Further P.W.2 deposed that he knew accused No.2 Vasantha Kumari and said Vasantha Kumari had pledged one day in the month of May 2011 one gold Thali, having 4 gold beads (gundugalu), Lakshmi Coin and taken Rs.6,000/- and he had given receipt in this regard to accused No.2. Further P.W.2 deposed that after lapse of 2 days said Vasantha Kumari had pledged one pair silver leg chain and one pair silver Kalandige, 2 gold Thali beads and taken Rs.4,000/- and in this regard he had given receipt to accused No.2. Further P.W.2 deposed that on 01-09-2011 accused No.2 had come to his shop along with police and police taken from his shop the above said pledged ornaments stating that said ornaments were - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 stolen articles by accused No.2. Further P.W.2 deposed that police had taken in writing and taken his signature and Ex.P.3 is the said document and it bears his signature which is marked Ex.P.3(α). 14. But P.W.2 in his cross examination by Advocate for accused No.1, 3, 5 & 6 stated that he could not say which police had come along with accused No.2 Vasantha Kumari and he could not say the names of those police persons. Further P.W.2 stated that he could not identify accused No.2 Vasantha Kumari due to lapse of several years further P.W.2 in his cross examination stated that police had simply taken his signature upon Ex.P.3 and he does not know to read and write kannada and he does not know what is written in Ex.P.3. Looking to this cross examination of P.W.2 it appears that simply police might have taken signature of P.W.2 upon Ex.P.3 and no mahazar has been conducted as shown in Ex.P.3. 15. P.W.3 is one of the Police Officials. He deposed in his evidence in chief examination to the effect that from 2010 to 2015 he worked as police constable having buckle No. 116 in Tavarekere Police station. On 02-07- 2011 CPI had ordered him, PSI Ashok and H.C-166 for tracing and produce before him the accused persons in Tavarekere Police Station Cr.No.222/2011. Further P.W.3 deposed that in the complaint pertaining to this case it was mentioned that Micromax mobile belonging to C.W.3 Vijaya was robbed and so they got IMEI number of said mobile from C.W.3 and when the same was put for search - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 it was revealed that said mobile is being used by Manjunath by using another sim. Further P.W.3 stated that accordingly on 02-07-2011 at 5.00 a.m. they took Manjunath to their custody and brought him to out post of Byadarahalli police station. Further P.W.3 deposed that when PSI Ashok made enquiry to Manjunath, he revealed that he, Sridhar (A-1), Harish (A-3), Ravindra (A-6) & Santhosh (A-7) all together had gone to the house of C.W.1 and robbed gold and silver articles and also mobile. Further P.W.3 deposed that on the basis of statement of Manjunath they took custody of Harish (A-3), Ravindra (A-6) and Suresh (A-4) at 11.00 a.m. and brought them to police station. Further P.W.3 deposed that from accused Manjunath they seized Micromax mobile by conducting mahazar in police station. Further P.W.3 deposed that as per the statement of Suresh (A-4), they seized the gold Thali chain and silver articles from Dasarahalli Manapuram Gold Finance belonging to C.W.3 Vijaya. Further P.W.3 identified A-3 Harish, A-5 Manjunath and A- 6 Ravindra in the open court. Further P.W.3 stated that he could identify Micromax mobile and gold Thali chain if the same were shown to him. Further P.W.3 deposed that on 01-09-2011 at about 6.00 a.m. he, H.C-166 Krishnappa took custody of A-2 Vasantha kumari, A-7 Santhosh, Sridhar near Hegganahalli Carmel School and produced them in Byadarahalli police station at about 6.30 p.m. before PSI. Further P.W.3 identified A- 7 Santhosh who was present before the court. Further P.W.3 stated that he could identify A-1 Sridhar and A-2 Vansantha Kumari if they were shown to him. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 16. It is to be noted here that since P.W.3 has not fully stated in his evidence in chief examination as per prosecution case. So, learned public prosecutor cross examined him by taking permission from the court to treat P.W.3 partly hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.3 during his cross examination by learned public prosecutor admitted the suggestion put to him with regard to names of accused persons and their production at Tavarekere Police station and in Byadarahalli Police Station Out Post. But looking to cross examination of P.W.3 by Advocate for accused No.1, 3, 5 & 6, it appears that the evidence in chief examination of P.W.3 cannot be accepted as gospel truth. Further, evidence in chief examination of P.W.3 has been denied in his cross examination by Advocate for accused No.1, 3, 5 & 6. Further it is suggested to P.W.3 in cross examination that there is no nexus between the accused persons and alleged incident of this case. Anyway, the evidence of P.W.3 will not help the prosecution to bring the accused persons to the home of guilt as his evidence has not been corroborated by evidence of material witnesses of prosecution since the said material witnesses have not been examined by prosecution. 17. P.W.4 is I.O. who partly conducted investigation in this after receipt of case papers and filed charge sheet against accused persons. Of course, P.W.4 in his evidence in chief examination deposed in detail about the investigation done by him in this case. But P.W.4's - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 evidence has denied in cross examination by Advocate for accused No.1, 3, 5 & 6. Anyway, the uncorroborated evidence of P.W.4 will not help the prosecution to bring the accused persons to the home of guilt. Since, as already stated above, the prosecution has not adduced the evidence of most material witnesses C.W.1 to 3 as well as evidence of seizure mahazar witnesses. 18. P.W.5 is another I.O. who partly conducted investigation in this case. He deposed in his evidence in chief examination to this effect. But his evidence has also been denied in cross examination by Advocate for accused No.1, 3, 5 & 6. As already stated above, the evidence of P.W.5 has not been corroborated by material witnesses of prosecution, his evidence will also not help the prosecution to bring the accused persons to the home of guilt 19. Anyway, looking to facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, I answer Point No. 1 in the Negative." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.208/2013, has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 submitted that in the said case, the other co-accused, who faced identical allegations and were tried on the same set of evidence, in view of splitup charge sheet were acquitted by the judgment and order dated 10.12.2019. It is submitted that the foundation of the prosecution case, which was found to be wholly inadequate in the earlier trial, having failed against other co-accused, leaves no independent material to continue proceedings against the present petitioner. Learned counsel has further relied on the consistent view taken by coordinate Benches in matters of similar nature, asserting that continuing the proceedings against the petitioner in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would be wholly unjust. 5. This Court finds it necessary to refer to the judgment in S.C.No.208/2013, which clearly demonstrates the inadequacy of the prosecution case and the substantial benefit that must accrue to the present petitioner as a co- accused. The judgment noted that the evidence adduced - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 failed to establish which accused were apprehended by which police officials and whether the accused were planning any unlawful act, thereby casting serious doubt on the case against all the accused, including the present petitioner. 6. The Sessions Judge emphasized that, in the absence of independent witnesses and corroborative evidence, the prosecution case could not be said to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. Paragraph 12 of the judgment further reinforces this position, noting that the prosecution could not establish the intention or participation of accused Nos.1, 3, 5 to 7 in the alleged offences. The major discrepancies and failure of key witnesses to support the prosecution case led to the conclusion that no material existed against the accused to sustain the charges. The judgment unequivocally holds that all ingredients of Sections 395 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and consequently, the co-accused were acquitted. 8. In light of the above, the petitioner, being similarly situated as one of the co-accused, is entitled to the benefit of the principle of consistency and legal parity. Where the prosecution has failed to substantiate the charges against other accused on the same evidence, it cannot be allowed to proceed against the petitioner in isolation. Continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in the face of the acquittal of co-accused, under identical circumstances, would not only violate the principle of equality before law but would also amount to a manifest abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petitioner is prima facie entitled to the benefit of the acquittal granted to other co-accused in S.C.No.208/2013. 9. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38048 CRL.P No. 10427 of 2025 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed; (ii) The proceedings pending in S.C.No.203/2018 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC, insofar as petitioner is concerned, are quashed; Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2