- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43869 CRL.P No. 10414 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10414 OF 2025 BETWEEN: YOGESHA S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT SEGEKOTE, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGENDRA B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAROHALLI POLICE, REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MURULI T., PSI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ADDRESS - PSI HAROHALLI POLICE STATION, HAROHALLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43869 CRL.P No. 10414 of 2025 S.C.NO.5029/2024 (CR NO.9/2021) BY HAROHALLI P.S, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KANAKAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 399, 402 OF IPC AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Criminal proceedings pending against petitioner in S.C.No.5029/2024 on the file of the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kanakapura is sought to be quashed in this petition. 2. The proceedings arise out of Crime No.9/2021 of Harohalli Police Station, Ramanagara, registered for the offence Punishable under Section 399 and 402 of IPC. 3. It is the case of prosecution that on 15.01.2021 while the complainant namely, the PSI of Harohalli Police Station was on a patrolling duty near Dr. Chandramma Dayananda Sagar Hospital, Bengaluru-Kanakapura main road, along with other police personal, he received a credible information that 6 unknown persons have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43869 CRL.P No. 10414 of 2025 assembled in a secluded area of pipeline road, Kanakapura-Bengaluru National Highway, armed with deadly weapons, preparing to commit dacoity. Having confirmed the said information, he secured the panchas and went to the spot and apprehended them and seized a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-42-Q-1944, knives, clubs, chilly powder packets etc. 4. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 in the charge sheet. As accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 were absconding, case against them was split up. Trial proceeded against accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 in S.C.No.5012/2021. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused No.1, 5 and 6, who faced the trial vide judgment dated 05.02.2025 holding that, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges leveled against them for the offence Punishable under Section 399 and 402 of IPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43869 CRL.P No. 10414 of 2025 6. Paragraph Nos.25 to 29 of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.5012/2021 are extracted here under:- "25. At this scenario, on scrutinization of the material available on record and also evaluating the prosecution witness statements deposed before the Court during the course of trial, the PW1 and PW2 are only independent witness to the case of the prosecution theory case and they have totally turned hostile to the prosecution theory case and does not supported the prosecution theory case in any manner. By the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, the recovery of M.O. 1 to 6 and also motor cycle appearing in Ex.P6 are also under serious dispute and creates doubts in the mind of the Court in respect of the genunity of prosecution theory case. Further, on considering ocular evidence of the PW1 and PW2 the contents of Ex.P1 is also under serious dispute especially in respect of its enforceability and also presence of the accused No.1, 5 and 6 in the alleged scene of occurrence and also recovery of the articles in presence of PW1 and PW2. Further, the prosecution has not established prosecution theory case against accused No. 1, 5 and 6 as required under provisions of law and miserably fails to establish the fact to full fill the ingredients of section 399 and 402 of IPC. 26. Further, this Court is also taken note of the cross-examination of the PW4 and statement deposed in his chief-examination of PW4 is not buttressed and the case of the prosecution is tilting, the PW4 had received the credible information on 15.01.2021 at evening hours and secured panchas at the spot only. Further, on considering the evidence of the PW4 that, the very presence and passing of the PW1 and PW2 at pipe line road near the vinicity of the Dr. Chandramma Dayananda Sagar Hospital of Kanakapura- Bengaluru Highway is also under serious doubt as being the PW1 and PW2 are the residents of Maralavadi village. In this regard, the prosecution has not explained the chance of circumstances that, PW1 and PW2 are present at time and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43869 CRL.P No. 10414 of 2025 available for police as panchas and on considering the evidence of the PW1 and 2 along with the evidence of PW4, it is highly improbable for this Court to believe the version of PW4 that, the PW4 had requested the PW1 and PW2 to came and assist as panchas at the late evening hours, in this regard, the PW4 had not brought any material that, who brought the PW1 and PW2 to the alleged scene of offence and on considering the evidence of PW4 along with the PW1 and PW2 are not corroborating with each other. Further, the PW4 being informant to the prosecution theory case and also who conducted ride mahazar himself and concluded investigation, the evidence of PW4 is cannot be believable one unless fortifies by the independent witness. Hence, the prosecution theory case is highly not acceptable one that the accused No. 1, 5 and 6 along with other accused persons were in preparation to commit dacoity. Further, proper explanation is not forthcoming from the prosecution that, whey the investigation agency have not made local residents as panchas to the Ex.P1. 27. In view of the above reasons and discussions, this Court does not find any concrete clinching and cogent evidence to inspire the confidence of this Court to accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against the Accused No.1, 5 and 6 regarding the alleged offence of preparation and attempt to commit dacoity with the help of alleged M.O.1 to M.O.6 and motor cycle as per Ex.P6. Further, mere recovery of M.O. 1 to 6 and motor cycle as per Ex.P6 will not come to the aid of the prosecution theory case to prove the home guilt for the offence punishable u/s 399 and 402 of IPC when the ingredients of offence is not established and the material and mahazar witness turned totally hostile to the prosecution theory case as well as seizer of M.O. 1 to 6 and motor cycle as per Ex.P6 are not proved in accordance with provisions of law. Therefore the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the home guilt of the accused No. 1, 5 and 6 for the offence punishable u/s 399 and 402 of IPC with concrete, cogent and corroborative evidence. 28. At this juncture this Court would like to rely upon the decision while deciding the case of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43869 CRL.P No. 10414 of 2025 Ramkishan -V/s- State of U.P., [2006 Crl. L.J. 1775] Wherein, the lordship held that “Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 399, 402 – Preparations to commit dacoity – Arrest of accused persons along with arms and ammunitions – No public witness summoned to witness the incident – Neither signatures of the accused were obtained – Neither signatures of the accused were obtained on seizure memo nor copy thereof were furnished to any of the accused – Out of 6 dacoits, 3 were armed with country made pistols and were having ten live cartridges also – However none of them had loaded their pistols – It could not be believed that the accused dacoits who had assembled at culvert were talking so loudly that their voice was heard by the police party in odd hours of night – The police party did not recover a single penny from the possession any of the accused. Non-recovery of coins or currency notes from the pockets of the accused makes the prosecution story doubtful – Accused held entitled to be acquitted”. 29. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has miserably fails to establish the factum probanda against the accused No.1, 5 and 6 for the offence punishable u/s 399 and 402 of IPC with beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused No. 1, 5 and 6 is entitled for acquittal for the alleged offences. Hence, this Court has answered Point Nos 1 and 2 in the Negative." 7. The allegations and the material collected against all the accused are one and same. After a full fledged trial, the trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1, 5 and 6 holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against them. There cannot be any other material - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43869 CRL.P No. 10414 of 2025 against the petitioner. Hence, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the criminal proceedings now pending against the petitioner, and it will be a futile exercise and an abuse of process of the Court. Hence, the following:- ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) Entire proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.4 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kanakapura in S.C.No.5029/2024 are quashed. I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43