- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41985 CRL.P No. 11897 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11897 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR. ABU FASIL KHAN, S/O. ABOOBKKAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT KAKKACHIYADA, KALPENI, LAKSHADWEEP-682 557. 2. MR. KABEER, S/O SYED ISMAYIL K, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT KOLIKKAD AYYADA, IDACHERY, ANDROTT, LAKSHADWEEP-682 551. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MOIDEEN IRSHAD K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. THANUJA, D/O. LATE BHUVANDERA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/AT THADULYA GUDDE, JEPPINAMOGARU, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41985 CRL.P No. 11897 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.207/2022 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.96/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 354, 354(B), 504 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND U/S 27(b) OF NDPS ACT, PERTAINING TO KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE JMFC VII AT MANGALURU AND ETC. 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 the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the material on record. 2. The proceeding in C.C.No.207/2022 arising out of Crime No.96/2017 registered at Kankanady Town Police Station, Mangaluru City pending on the file of JMFC VII at Mangaluru and the Proclamation Order issued against the petitioners are under challenge in this Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41985 CRL.P No. 11897 of 2025 3. The aforementioned case was registered on a complaint lodged by one Thanuja on 08.03.2017 against one Kumar and three unknown persons for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354(B), 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 27(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS'). 4. The petitioners failed to appear before the Trial Court and therefore split-up case was registered against them in C.C.No.207/2022. 5. Accused Nos.1 and 4 who faced trial before the Court of JMFC - VII at Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada were acquitted vide judgment dated 16.04.2024. The copy of the judgment has been produced at Annexure-E. 6. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 4 with a common intention of committing the crime, consumed ganja and abused CW.1 and CW.2 who were walking on the roadside, in a filthy language, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41985 CRL.P No. 11897 of 2025 touched their chest, pulled the chudidaar top of CW.1 with an intention to outrage their modesty etc. 7. The Trial Court while acquitting accused Nos.1 and 4, at paragraph Nos.12 and 16 has observed as under: "12. On perusal of the entire materials available on record, the victims turned hostile and panchas turned hostile and hence, the Prosecution did not prove the case under Section 341, 354, 354(b), 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, I answer Point No.1 to 4 negatively. 16. On perusal of the entire materials available on record, it is quite evident that, there was no Ganja found from the possession of the Accused. Hence, invoking the Section 50 of NDPS act does not arise to the facts of this case. It is to be further noticed that, whether the Accused consumed Ganja and they were subjected undergo medical test on the date of their arrest. The Medical officers have reported the same as positive in the consumption. On perusal of the medical reports, the Accused were not subjected to medical test on the date of incident. Whereas, the 164 statements of the victims makes it very clear that, the Accused were arrested from the spot on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41985 CRL.P No. 11897 of 2025 date of incident when they phone called the Police. In such circumstances, the Prosecution should explain the reason for not subjecting the Accused for medical test as on the date of arrest. But the Prosecution papers says that, the Accused were arrested lated to the date of incident and they were subjected to medical tests. It is well settled principle that, if a person consumes Ganja, there is mere chances that the residues would last for 5-7 day in a human body. But in this case, the Prosecution has not specifically stated or specifically mentioned the date of consumption of Ganja by the Accused persons. In case, if the Accused were consumed later to the date of incident, they cannot be held liable in this case. Hence, the arguments of the learned APP with respect to relying upon the medical reports does not have any sanctity in this case. Hence, I answer Point No.5 Negatively". 8. The evidence and material on record against all the accused are one and the same. Accused Nos.1 and 4 against whom similar allegations are made, are acquitted after a full-fledged trial. The said judgment has become final. It is to be noted that the victims as well as panchas have turned hostile. In that view of the matter, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41985 CRL.P No. 11897 of 2025 continuation of the criminal proceeding which is now pending against the petitioners is an abuse of process of the Court. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. 10. Entire proceeding in C.C.No.207/2022 on the file of JMFC - VII at Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (now at JMFC-VI at Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada in C.C.No.1020/2025) and the Proclamation Order issued against the petitioners are quashed. 11. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24