- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3975 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MUBARAK S/O SYED BABUSAB ANWAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT YALAHANKA ROAD M.S. PALYA, BANGALORE - 57. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATA REDDY C.M, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YASHWANTHPUR RAILWAY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.1312/2011 (SC.NO.731/2021) ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.5/2011 REGISTERED BY YESHWANTHPUR RAILWAY P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 201 OF IPC, THERE AFTER INVESTIGATION CHARGE SHEET HAS FILED U/S 396 OF Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-68). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question continuance of SC.No.1312/2011 registered for offences punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. Heard Sri. Venkata Reddy C.M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.5/2011 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet in C.C.No.14691/2011, not for the aforesaid offences, but offence under Section 396 of the IPC. The petitioner is accused No.3. The other accused were available for trial and were tried - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 by the concerned Court in terms of its order dated 27.01.2017. The concerned Court has acquitted all the other accused and split up the case against the persons, who were not available for trial, one of those is the petitioner/accused No.3. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court to acquit the other accused could be gathered from paragraph Nos.17, 18, 19 and 83 to 87 of the order dated27.01.2017, it reads as follows: "17. P.W.11-Sri.Chandrashekar, the panch witness for the seizure mahazar has deposed that the police have brought four accused near railway lane near RMC Yard .e., near the bush, wherein they have thrown the knife. The accused have picked up the knife M.O.1 from the said bush and the police have obtained his signature on the seizure mahazar Ex.P.15. He has further deposed that the police have seized the knife along with handkerchief M.O.2. He has stated that the police have seized the liquor bottle M.O.3. He identified the signature on the chits containing M.Os.1 to 3. He identifies the signature on M.O.4, but he does not remember when it was seized, as he fails to disclose its contents, hence, the sealed cover is not opened. The said sealed cover is marked as M.O.4, but his signature on M.O.4 is marked as M.O.4(a). The learned Public Prosecutor has cross examined the P.W.11 and suggested that on 7.02.2011, Yeshwanthpur Railway Police have requested him to act as pancha, as the accused No.2 is going to produce the articles. The accused No.2 has produced the handkerchief M.O.2 and knife M.O.4-knife, but the witness fails to identify M.O.4. But, he identifies his signature on Ex.P.16. This witness has half-heartedly deposed before the court that which of the accused produced the M.Os.1 to 3. But, the Investigating Officer, who has drawn the seizure mahazar Ex.P.15 i.e., recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 4 to 6 have taken the P.W.11 near the huts existed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 near the Yeshwanthpur Railway Station i.e., Railway KM No.4/900 and produced the M.Os.1 to 3, the said mahazar was drawn on 30.01.2011 between 8-00 a.m., and 10-00 a.m., has not turned up and deposed about the above aspect. The non-examination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution case and moreover, the evidence of P.W.11 is not trust worthy to base the conviction. The Investigating Officer, who has drawn another seizure mahazar Ex.P.16 on 7.02.2011 at the instance of accused No.2, who has produced the M.Os.2 and 4, which were kept at the waist of the accused No.2, but P.W.11 has turned hostile and fails to identify the M.O.4 and also fails to disclose that the M.Os.2 and 4 were seized from the waist of accused No.2, when he was apprehended. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recovery of M.Os.1 to 4 beyond reasonable doubt at the instance of the accused. 18. P.W.12-Sri.Bhaskar, Retired P.S.I., who has deposed that when he was in service at Yeshwanthpur Railway Police Station, on 29.01.2011, the Investigating Officer has deputed him and his staff for tracing out the accused. Accordingly, he had been to Govardhan Talkies and apprehended the accused Nos.1 and 4 to 6 and produced them before C.W.26 along with his report Ex.P.17. He has further deposed that on 7.02.2011, he was again deputed along with his staff for tracing out absconding accused, on the credible information he had been to Sharieff Nagar and get the further credible information that the accused No.2 is visiting to his house. When the accused No.2 was about to enter to his house, they have apprehended the accused No.2 and the accused No.2 was in possession of handkerchief and knife and he has produced the accused No.2 before C.W.27 along with his report Ex.P.18. The evidence of P.W.12 is pertaining to conducting of part of investigation by him. It is no way help to the prosecution to base the conviction, as because, P.W.12 has not drawn the mahazar while seizing of M.Os.2 and 4, when the accused No.2 was apprehended, the accused No.2 was in possession of M.Os.2 and 4 and the same were in the presence of panchas. 19. P.W.13-Sri.Bhimanna, P.S.I., has deposed about apprehending of the accused i.e., there is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 corroboration in the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 about apprehending of the accused. As I have already held that the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 is pertaining to part of investigation i.e., apprehending of the accused. It will not help the prosecution to base the conviction, as they have seized M.Os.2 and 4 without drawing the mahazar. The Investigating Officer, who has conducted the investigation and laying the charge sheet after completing the investigation, has also not turned up and deposed before the court about the investigation made by him. The non- examination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the prosecution to bring home the guilt against the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to establish the chain of link to connect the accused on the basis of last seen theory that the accused have committed the murder of Santhosh by stabbing with knives on all the parts of body, as he has resisted for committing dacoity. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in the Negative. 20. POINT No.2 : In view of my finding on Point No.1 as above, my finding on this point is as per the following : O R D E R Acting under Section 235 Cr.P.C., accused Nos.1 and 4 to 6 are acquitted for an offence punishable under Section 396 of IPC. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be retained till disposal of the case registered against the split-up accused Nos.2 and 3." On the said reason, if the petitioner is also now permitted to be tried on account of his absence during the regular trial, it cannot be that the petitioner would get convicted, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 notwithstanding the fact that the accused acquitted on the same evidence. In that light, permitting further trial against this petitioner would be wastage of precious judicial time. 4. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.4796/2017 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench considering identical set of facts has held as follows: “12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would disclose that petitioner/accused was never traced and non-bailable warrant issued against him was never executed. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268 has held quashing of charge and order discharging co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations and if said judgment had reached finality. It is also held that discharge of a co-accused by the High Court by holding that no purpose would be served in further proceeding with the case, is just and proper. In another ruling in MOHAMMED ILIAS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551 this Court has held as under: “The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding. Therefore, the case against the petitioner was split up and charge-sheet was laid against other available accused Nos.1 and 3 for committing an offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 IPC r/w 34 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the trial, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner was arrested and proceedings were revived against him in the split charge sheet.... In the instant case also, the full pledged trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 3, in respect of the same offence. In the second round of trial against the petitioner, the evidence to be produced cannot be different from the one that was produced by the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed.” 13. Yet, in another ruling THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. K.C.NARASEGOWDA reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect: “As the case before the Sessions Judge is not a pending case, he cannot keep the file any longer pending nor he can close the case as he has to await appearance of the accused or the production by the State, for passing orders regarding undergoing sentence. As such, considering these peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. instead of jurisdiction under Section 385 of Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice. As the entire material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 benefit of doubt as he is extended for his co-accused. Accused acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.” 14. In this background, when the facts on hand are examined, it would clearly indicate that not only complainant but also other witnesses including the inmates of ambulance in which they were travelling on the date of incident, had turned hostile in the proceedings which was continued against co- accused. Though, P.W.1 – complainant had admitted that he has lodged a compliant as per Ex.P-1 and had also admitted that he has given a statement identifying the accused before the Investigation Officer, he did not identify the accused persons present before Court. In fact, statements given by him as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 when confronted, he denied the same and had also denied the suggestion put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2 to P.W.8 had not identified the accused persons present before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In fact, they have not even identified the statements made by them before the Investigating Officer and nothing worthwhile has been elicited in their cross- examination to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, taking into consideration said evidence available on record Sessions Court had arrived at a conclusion that evidence of the witnesses examined by prosecution would not come to their assistance. In fact, witnesses to the seizure panchnama - Ex.P-40, who were examined as P.W.16 and P.W.17, have also turned hostile and they have stated that police had called them a year back to the police station and when they went to the police station, they had not seen any accused persons in police station. However, they admit police having taken their signatures on the papers and contents of it were not known to them. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 15. It is in this background, trial Court on appreciation of entire evidence had acquitted all the accused persons by holding that prosecution had failed to prove the offence alleging accused persons beyond reasonable doubt attracting the ingredients of provisions of the offence alleged against them. In fact, Sessions Court has observed that there was certain communal disturbance in Dakshina Kannada district and other places at Bantwal Taluk and to please on community of people, the Investigating Officer might have falsely implicated the accused persons in a false case or to avoid the blame to be received from the public or other community people and such possibilities cannot be ruled out. In this background, when prayer of petitioner sought for in the present petition is examined, it can be noticed that contents of supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner is similar, identical and in fact, it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33, who15 were tried in S.C.No.12/2007, 94/2007 and 26/2008 and had been acquitted. 16. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the firm view that judgment rendered by trial Court insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is similar and identical to the charge made against the present petitioner. This Court does not find any independent or separate material having been placed by the prosecution against present petitioner to put him on trial once again and directing the petitioner- accused to undergo the order of trial, which ultimately would fetch same result as that of accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33. When allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made against present petitioner, it has to be necessarily held that they are identical, similar and inseparable in nature and no - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 independent decision can be taken against the present petitioner. Therefore, no purpose would be served even if the present petitioner is ordered to be tried by the trial Court. 17. In view of the afore stated facts and the law laid down, as discussed hereinabove, it would emerge that there would be no harm or injustice that would be caused to prosecution if benefit of acquittal order is passed in favour of accused – petitioner, since accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 against whom similar allegation had been made is already acquitted. Though, it is contended by Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State that petitioner should not be extended said benefit, since he is an absconder, by relying upon judgment of Coordinate Bench this Court is not inclined to accept said contention for single reason that said judgment had been rendered based on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of DEEPAK RAJAK vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in (2007) 15 SCC 305 where under Apex Court after noticing the facts obtained in the said case, had held that benefit of acquittal, should be extended to the appellant, since co- accused had been acquitted and held that a departure can be made in cases where accused has not surrendered “after conviction” in addition to not filing an appeal against the conviction. As such, noticing earlier position of law laid down it was held by the Apex Court that in case of acquittal of a accused for same offence on same set of facts and on similar accusations, if considered, it would entile for acquittal of co-accused also. 18. In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 ORDER (i) Criminal petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.1170/2007 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal, in Cr.No.130/2006 registered by Bantwal Rural Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar petitioner is concerned. In view of criminal petition having been disposed of on merits, I.A.No.1/2017 for stay does not survive for consideration and same stands rejected.” The Co-ordinate Bench was considering a case where the co-accused, who had escaped trial had not surrendered or was not arrested by the police. 5. In the light of there being no evidence against any of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioner being tried now before the learned Sessions Judge would become an exercise in futility. In the teeth of there being no evidence or a specific charge against this petitioner, that was not charged against others and to save precious judicial time, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 accepting the subject petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22896 CRL.P No. 3975 of 2026 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in SC.No.1312/2011 pending before the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge stands quashed, qua the petitioner/accused No.3. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23