- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11769 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR. NAGARAJU @ PAPPI, SON OF CHENNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.48, SIDDARTH LAYOUT, KATHRIGUPPE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJANNA B.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY - 560 050 REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MR. POORNACHANDRA TEJASVI M.S S/O LATE. B SHANKRAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, POLICE INSPECTOR, C.C.B., NT PETE, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN CC.NO.4429/2014 OF HANUMANTHANAGAR P.S. BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 399, 402 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XXIV ADDL. CJM, BENGALURU. 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 said to be accused No.8 is before this Court calling in question the continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.4429/2014 for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Rajanna B.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.305/2012 for offences punishable as afore-quoted. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet for the offences again as afore-quoted. The concerned Court acquits all the other accused who are available for trial and the petitioner not being available for trial, a split charge is drawn against him in C.C.No.4429/2014, which is now hanging on the head of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing before the petitioner submits that the reasons that went into acquitting the other accused would become straight away applicable to the petitioner as well, as the offence is one of preparation for commission of dacoity as obtaining under Section 399 of the IPC. If it is a collective act, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be singled out for a different treatment. 5. Learned HCGP would, however, refute the submissions contending that the petitioner has escaped trial. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 Therefore, he must be directed to face trial and come out clean like the other accused and would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue before the Court relates to the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC, which is preparation for commission of dacoity. The allegation is that all the accused together did indulge in preparation for commission of dacoity. The concerned Court answering the prosecution's allegations, acquitted all the other accused, who were available for trial on the following reasons: "21. In the present case, it is the specific case of the accused during the cross-examination of Prosecution Witnesses that they have not committed any offences as alleged against them, Investigating Officer has brought them from their respective houses earlier to the alleged incident and they have been falsely implicated in this case only in order to harass them. In the present case, Prosecution has not examined CW.2 and 3 who are the panchas alleged to have been accompanied CW.1 for conducting the raid. Further in the present case, Investigating Officer has not recorded the statements of rival group persons viz., Pavan, Sathya and Loki in this case. Further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 Investigating Officer has not given any explanation for non-recording the statements of the said persons. It is the specific case of the Prosecution that on that day, accused persons were assembled in order to commit the murder of said persons and to rob them and if that is so, the statements of said persons are important piece of evidence in this case and Investigating Officer has not recorded their statements and not given any explanation for non-recording their statements. Further CW.1 and PW.5 in their evidence have stated that they have not observed on that day, whether the rival group persons were passed from the road or not. It is the case of the Prosecution that the accused persons were having information that the rival group persons were passing from that place and for that reason they have assembled thee and Investigating Officer has not watched on the spot whether the said persons have passed from the said place or not on that day. In the present case, PW.1, 2, 4 and 5 in their evidence stated that they are unable to say which colour dress the accused were worn on that day. Further they have stated that they are unable to say on which side which accused was standing. PW.1 and 2 have stated that they are unable to say the boundaries of the spot. So, the evidence of PW.1 to 5, Ex.P1 to 6 and MO.1 to 10 will not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the citation reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1412 in Chatur Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar, wherein it has held as follows; "Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.399 and 402 - Conviction under - legality. Decision of Patna High Court, Reversed. Prosecution evidence merely showing that eight persons including the appellant were found in the school premises which was quite close to the market at 1 a.m. and that some of them were armed with guns, some had cartridges and others ran away - Held that the conviction under Ss:399 and 402, was not sustainable - The mere fact that these persons were found at 1 a.m. did not by itself prove that they had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity or for making preparations to accomplish that object - The possibility that the appellants might have collected for the purpose of murdering somebody or committing some other offence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 could not be safely eliminated. Decision of Patna High Court, Reversed." 22. From the principles laid down in the above cited rulings of our Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that only assembling the persons with deadly weapons itself will not prove that they have committed offence under Sec.399, 402 of IPC. So, looking from any angle, Prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused. As per the well settled principle of law, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused and in the present case accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, I hold that Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for the above discussion, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the NEGATIVE. 23. POINT NO.3: In view of my findings point No.1 and 2 and reasons stated there, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Acting under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. accused No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec.399 and 402 of IPC. Bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled forthwith. Jail authorities are hereby directed to release the accused No.1 and 7, if they are not required in any other case. As the case is splitted against accused No.5 and 8, no order as to disposal of MO.1 to 10. Keep the original judgment in S.C.952/2013 and copy in S.C.248/2014." 8. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 beyond all reasonable doubt. If that be the case against the other accused for passing an order of acquittal, it cannot be said that the petitioner would get convicted, if a trial is permitted on the same set of evidence. In that light, to save the precious judicial time, I deem it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and obliterate the same. 9. 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: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 “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 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 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. 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 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 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. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 18. In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: 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. 10. 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, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25555 CRL.P No. 11769 of 2025 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.4429/2014 pending before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, stand quashed, qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8