- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53642 CRL.P No. 13431 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13431 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. APPLI @ MOHAMMED RAFIQ S/O. MOIDINBA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT. D. NO. 3-195, MADANI NAGAR, MUNNUR, BANTWAL TAKU. D.K. DISTRICT - 575017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHWIN JOYSTON KUTINHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RENSPRE PRITHESH DSOUZA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ULLAL P.S. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE- 560001. 2. MR. MOHAMMED HANIF, S/O. ABBAS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT. KAKKETHOTA, ALEKELA, ULLALA VILLAGE, MANGALURU-575020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C C Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53642 CRL.P No. 13431 of 2025 NO.672/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF OF HONBLE JMFC VII COURT AT MANGALORE FOR THE O/P/US/ 143,147,323,324,506 R/W 34 OF IPC, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.358/2006 OF ULLAL P.S. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Heard the Learned counsel for petitioner, Learned HCGP and perused the material on record. 2. Petitioner is seeking to quash the entire proceedings in split-up C.C.No.672/2025 pending on the file of the learned JMFC VII Court at Mangalore. 3. FIR was registered in Crime No.358/2006 of Ullal Police Station against accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 324, 506 read with 149 IPC. 4. It is the case of prosecution that on 05.12.2006 at about 05.30 p.m. in a public place near Alekala Madani School ground at Ullal Village, Mangaluru, all the accused - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53642 CRL.P No. 13431 of 2025 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object and assaulted the complainant with belt and hands causing him simple injuries and thereby committed the charge sheeted offences. 5. Charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 6. Since the petitioner was absconding, the case against him was split up. In original C.C.No.4261/2007, trial was held against accused No.1. The said accused was found not guilty and acquitted by the Court of JMFC ( III Court) Mangalore, D.K, vide judgment dated 17.08.2012. Further, after securing the presence of accused No.2, trial was held against him in C.C.No.3869/2011. The said accused was also acquitted by the learned Magistrate, vide Judgment dated 01.01.2015. The instant petition is preferred by the absconding accused, who has been arraigned as accused No.2 in the split-up C.C.No.672/2025, on the ground that after a full-fledged trial, the co-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court and the said Judgment and Order has attained finality. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53642 CRL.P No. 13431 of 2025 6. The certified copy of the Judgment passed in C.C.No.4261/2007 dated 17.08.2012 and C.C.No3869/2011 dated 01.01.2015 are furnished as documents Nos.5 and 6 respectively. 7. The learned Magistrate, taking into consideration that the material witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and the evidence available on record does not inspire the confidence of the Court to draw a conclusion that the accused have committed the alleged offence, proceeded to acquit the accused. 8. Para 13 and 14 of the Judgment in C.C.No.4261/2007. are extracted hereunder:- "13. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 being the eyewitnesses to the incident and P.W.3 being the complainant as well as victim have not supported the case of prosecution in their examination in chief as well as their cross-examination. I have carefully perused the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5. P.Ws.1 to 5 have stated that accused persons - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53642 CRL.P No. 13431 of 2025 have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that police have not prepared any mahazar on the spot in presence of them. Since they identified their signature on mahazar, mahazar is marked as Ex.P1 and their signatures as Exs.P1(a) and (b) respectively. They does not know the contents of ExP1. P.W.3 has stated that accused persons have not made galata with him. They have neither assaulted him with belt and hands nor threatened his life with dire consequences. In this regard he has not given complaint against the accused. Since he identified his signature in the complaint, complaint is marked as Ex.P3 and his signature as Ex.P3(a). He does not know the contents of Ex.P3. Here P.Ws.1 to 5 were treated as hostile by learned A.P.P., and were cross- examined in length, wherein they denied the entire case of the prosecution. P.W.1 has denied his statement before police as per Ex.P2 and P.Ws.4 and 5 have also denied their statements before police as per Exs.P4 and P5 respectively. They denied to the suggestion that they are deposing falsely to help the accused since - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53642 CRL.P No. 13431 of 2025 compromised the matter with the accused persons. 14. It must be noted that in the complaint Ex.P3, the complainant, namely P.W.3 has alleged that accused persons have committed the alleged offences. However, during his examination-in-chief before the court, this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and other eyewitnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 also have not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, I hold the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is not clear and cogent to prove the alleged guilt of the accused persons. In my view, once the material witnesses themselves have not supported the case of the prosecution, then it creates a serious doubt about the admissibility of the allegation made by the prosecution. Therefore, in my opinion, the evidence available on record does not inspires the confidence of the court to draw a conclusion that accused committed the alleged offences. Therefore, I hold that the evidence available on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all shadow of doubt. Hence, Points No.2 to 5 are answered in the Negative." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53642 CRL.P No. 13431 of 2025 9. The Apex Court in 'Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi V/s. State of Gujarat' reported in 2023 INSC 829, has held at Paragraph No.15 as under: "When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination." 10. The evidence and material which the prosecution intends to rely against the petitioner are the same which was canvassed against the accused who are already acquitted by the trial Court. The material not being different and the co-accused having been already acquitted by the trial Court, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner will not serve any purpose. Hence, in order to prevent the abuse of process - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53642 CRL.P No. 13431 of 2025 of the Court, it is expedient to quash the proceedings. Accordingly the following:- ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) The entire proceeding in C.C.No.672/2025 pending before the Learned JMFC VII Court at Mangalore D. K., qua the petitioner is quashed. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50