- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36105 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12956 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MANJA @ MANJUNATH S/O PEDDANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT KALYANAPURA VILLAGE SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK ( NOW IN J.C) PIN - 562 120. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.N. RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAGADI POLICE 2. SANJEEVEGOWDA .H.B S/O H.S. BASAVARAJAIAH P.S.I, MAGADI POLICE STATION R1 AND R2 ARE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36105 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.28/2025, ON THE FILE OF LEARNED 1ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPL.JUDGE, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399, 402 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner, arrayed as Accused No.5 in S.C. No.28/2025 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Ramanagara, has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No.6/2010. It is pointed out that the other co-accused, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36105 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2025 who were tried for identical charges arising out of the same incident and on the basis of the very same set of evidence, were acquitted by judgment and order dated 12.11.2013. It is contended that the substratum of the prosecution case having collapsed in the earlier trial, there is no independent or substantive material left on record to warrant continuation of proceedings against the present petitioner. Relying upon the said judgment of acquittal, as well as the view expressed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in matters of a similar nature, learned counsel submits that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be a sheer abuse of the process of law and would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner, who is presently in judicial custody. 3. Having considered the submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case against the petitioner is entirely founded upon the same allegations and evidence which were the subject-matter of adjudication in S.C.No.6/2010. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36105 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2025 This Court deems it fit to extract the relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.6/2010. The same is extracted as under: "11. Point No.1:- I have briefly stated the case of the prosecution. I have perused the evidence of PW.1 to 3 and Ex.P1 to P4 in detail. PW.1 Chandrabansingh is the seizure mahazar witness. PW.1 has deposed that he has not seen the accused. However this witness has admitted his signature on Ex.P1 mahazar. PW.1 has clearly deposed that the police have not seized the iron rod, machu and other articles from the possession of the accused persons at Magadi-Gudemaranahalli road and the police have not recorded his statement. Therefore from the evidence of PW.1 it is clear that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused persons and no mahazar was drawn in the presence of this witness. As this witness is deposing against the case of the prosecution, this witness has been treated as hostile and the learned public prosecutor was permitted to cross examine this witness. Even in the cross-examination, this witness denied all the suggestions made by the learned public prosecutor. PW.2 has deposed in his examination in chief that he was working as Magadi C.P.I. from 3.5.2007 to 2.6.2010. PW.2 has deposed that he received telephone message on 5/6.4.2008 at 4.30 a.m, he went to a road near Thimmasandra gate on Magadi-Gudemaranahalli road and found one tata sumo vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-02-MB-0141 parked and one and two persons standing infront of the tata sumo vehicle and three persons sitting on the vehicle and one person was standing infront of tata sumo vehicle was holding a knife and another person was holding a iron rod and he found choppers and clubs in tata sumo vehicle and he was able to apprehend 4 persons and one person by name Manja @ Manjunatha ran away and he arrested those four persons and conducted mahazar and seized the said vehicle and he has produced those accused No.1 to 4 before the Court on 6.4.2008 and a case was registered in Magadi police station crime No.73/2008. In the cross-examination PW.2 has deposed that he does not know who was the S.H.O. on that day. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36105 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2025 PW.2 has admitted that he has not produced any document to show that he was on night rounds on that day. PW2 has clearly admitted that he has not enquired the owner of tata sumo and he has not obtained the statement of the owner of the tata sumo vehicle. PW.2 has clearly admitted that during the course of investigation no witnesses have made statement to the effect that the accused persons have threatened by holding deadly weapons. On careful perusal of the entire cross-examination of PW.2, it creates a shadow of doubt regarding the very presence of the accused and muchless the very commission of the alleged offences by these accused persons. PW.3 is mahazar witness (Ex.P1). PW.3 has clearly deposed that police have not arrested the accused persons who are before the Court and they have not conducted mahazar and they have not seized MO.1 to 4 in his presence. PW.3 has also deposed that he has never seen the accused persons. Therefore this witness has also been treated as hostile witness and learned public prosecutor was permitted to cross- examine this witness. In the cross-examination PW.3 has stoutly denied all the suggestions made by the learned P.P. In view of the evidence of PW.1 to 3, the learned P.P. has closed evidence on the side of the prosecution. On over all perusal of the evidence of PW.1 to 3 and other material placed on record it is crystal clear that there are no incriminating circumstances against the accused persons. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence this is a fit case to acquit the accused persons due to lack of evidence." 4. Since the co-accused were acquitted on merits after a full-fledged trial, and no fresh or independent material is forthcoming to implicate the petitioner, the very foundation of the prosecution stands eroded. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings in S.C. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36105 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2025 No.28/2025 against the petitioner would serve no useful purpose and would amount to perpetuating abuse of the process of the Court. 5. In exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met by quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed; (ii) The proceedings pending in S.C.No.28/2025 on the file of the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Ramanagara, for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of IPC, insofar as petitioner is concerned, are quashed; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36105 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2025 (iii) The Jail Superintendent, District Prison, Ramanagara, is hereby directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 54