- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37251 CRL.P No. 12581 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12581 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. VISHAL KUMAR, S/O JAGADISHA SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT EWS, KUNJATTHABAIL DEVINAGAR MANGALURU TALUK 575001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BARKE POLICE STATION MANGALURU-575003. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. AKSHAY BHANDARY S/O MANJAYA BHANDARY AGED MAJOR, R/AT TALIPADY HOUSE BEJAI KSRTC BUS STAND MANGALURU-575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37251 CRL.P No. 12581 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.114/2023 REGISTERED BY THE BARKE POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, D.K., FOR HTE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 507, 368, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused No.4, who is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.114/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 507, 386, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The present petitioner, along with the other accused, was subjected to criminal prosecution on the allegation that they, with a common intention to extort money from C.W.1, made a telephonic demand of Rs.25,000/-. During this call, the accused allegedly threatened C.W.1 with dire consequences, including threats to life. Pursuant to the first information report, a case was registered, the investigation was completed, and a charge- sheet was filed. As the present petitioner was absconding, a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37251 CRL.P No. 12581 of 2025 split charge-sheet was filed, and the co-accused were subjected to a full-fledged criminal trial. However, the Trial Court acquitted the co-accused on the ground that material witnesses C.Ws.1 to 3 had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. The Trial Court further declined to permit the prosecution to summon the remaining witnesses. Finding no incriminating evidence against the accused, the learned Judge recorded the 313 statement of the co-accused and, acting under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C., dropped the proceedings. Consequently, accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 507, 386, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC in C.C.No.184/2020. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of this Court in Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Another, Crl.P.No.5376/2024, dated 19.09.2024, submits that in light of the co-accused’s acquittal and the finality of the order, this Court, exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., ought to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37251 CRL.P No. 12581 of 2025 On the other hand, the learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 opposes the petition, contending that a split charge-sheet was filed because the petitioner had absconded and was not arrested. In view of the acquittal order in C.C.No.184/2020, this Court must examine whether continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner—against whom identical allegations have been made—is warranted. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it fit to take cognizance of paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the judgment in C.C.No.184/2020, which are extracted below for ease of reference: “14. In order to prove the accusation made against the accused persons, the prosecution has totally examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to 3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to 3 and MO.1 to 3. CW.1 is the first informant who is alleged victim in this case against whom the accused are said to have extorted a sum of Rs.25,000/- with common intention and have threatened with dire consequences. He is examined as PW.2. In his evidence, PW.2 has completely turned hostile to the prosecution case stating that, he does not know the accused persons. He is not aware of the alleged fact of accused No.1 having made phone call to his mobile phone No.9538144024 demanding a sum of Rs.25,000/ nor is he aware of other accused persons on the instructions of accused No.1 having made phone call from their No. 7829353189 to his mobile No.9538144024 demanding a sum of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37251 CRL.P No. 12581 of 2025 Rs.25,000/- and failing to do so said accused persons having threatened to take away his life. However, the witness has identified his signature in first information which is marked at Ex.P3 and his signature at Ex.P3(a) and he has categorically denied the alleged charges levelled against the accused. Similarly, the panch witnesses to property seizure mahazar are respectively examined as PW.1 and 3 who have also turned hostile to the prosecution case stating that, no such seizure mahazar has been drawn in their presence as per Ex.P1 and no mobile phone alleged to have belong to accused have been seized in their presence by the police as per Ex.P1. Although, PW.1 to 3 have been treated hostile by the prosecution and have been cross examined, but nothing worth material has been elicited from them to disbelieve their version as stated in their chief examination. However, PW.2 the material witness who is alleged victim and first informant in this case has stated in his evidence that, he has got compromised the dispute with accused persons and has grievance against them with respect to the alleged incident, but has denied that, to help the accused he is deposing falsely before the court. As the aforementioned witnesses who are materials witnesses in this case have completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and thus the prayer of the prosecution to summon the rest of the witnesses is rejected since no purpose will be served as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused in the evidence of PW.1 to 3 and therefore recording of 313 statement of the accused is dropped. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37251 CRL.P No. 12581 of 2025 15. Since PW.1 to 3 the material witnesses in this case have failed to support the version of prosecution and hence it has to be held that prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused and failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged against them. Hence accused deserve acquittal. Hence, I answer the point No.1 to 3 are in the Negative”. 4. Upon a meticulous review of the extracted judgment, it is unequivocally evident that the material witnesses (C.Ws.1 to 3) have not supported the prosecution's case and have turned hostile. This pivotal development led to the acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 3. Notably, it was accused No.1 who initiated the alleged extortion by contacting the victim and demanding a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Given that the acquittal of co-accused Nos.1 to 3 has attained finality, the petitioner, who is similarly implicated under identical allegations and is arraigned as accused No.4, is entitled to the same benefit. This entitlement is grounded in the principle that the acquittal of co-accused on the same facts and evidence extends to all similarly situated accused, as established in the case of C.K. Babu vs. State of Karnataka. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37251 CRL.P No. 12581 of 2025 5. The legal position on this point is well-settled. In C.K. Babu v. State of Karnataka (2025), it has been held that where co-accused are acquitted by the Sessions Court on identical charges and evidence, such acquittal enures to the benefit of other accused similarly situated. Likewise, in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh (AIR 2005 SC 268), the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the acquittal of co-accused on the same set of facts and evidence entitles even an absconding accused, against whom a split charge-sheet has been filed, to the same benefit, since there is no surviving evidence to warrant a different conclusion. The Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka v. K.C. Narasegowda (ILR 2005 Kar. 1822) has further emphasized that once the co-accused have been acquitted on merits, the continuation of criminal proceedings against those standing on the same footing would amount to harassment and an infringement of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37251 CRL.P No. 12581 of 2025 6. In the present case, the substratum of the prosecution has already collapsed by reason of the hostility of the prime witnesses and the consequent acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 3. The charges and the evidentiary basis against the petitioner are not only identical but inseparably linked with those against the acquitted accused. In such circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. On the principles of parity and to secure the ends of justice, this Court is persuaded to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.114/2023 are liable to be quashed. ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Consequently, the proceedings in C.C.No.114/2023 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Dakshina Kannada, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 507, 386, 506 read with Section 34 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37251 CRL.P No. 12581 of 2025 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51