- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15719 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2875 OF 2025 IN CRL.P No. 15719/2025 BETWEEN: MOHAMMAD SAFWAN @ SAFWAN P. @ CHAPPU S/O MOHAMMAD PODIYA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT 5-119/1 BADRIYA NAGARA, KONCHAR BAJPE, MANGALURU D.K. - 574 142 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHAMMAD ANWAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01 2. VIJAYA PRASAD S/O LATE BABU GATTI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 R/AT ABBAS HAJI COMPOUND MUKHYAPRASAD TEMPLE ROAD BAJALKERI, MANGALORE - 575 004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.865/2023 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.46/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 504, 506, 324, 307 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC AND SEC.2(c) AND SEC.25(1-B)(c), 27(1) OF ARMS ACT AND SEC.2(b) OF KPDLP ACT, PERTAINING TO MANGALURU NORTH P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE II JMFC AT MANGALURU. IN CRL.P NO. 2875/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMED NAWAZ S/O MOOSABBA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 3-57/5/B, DARUN NOOR, HPCL COLONY, 62 THOKUR JOKATTE, MANGALORE D K DISTRICT ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. IMTIAZ B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01 2. VIJAYA PRASAD S/O LATE BABU GATTI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT ABBAS HAJI COMPOUND MUKHYAPRASAD TEMPLE ROAD, BAJALKERI MANGALORE ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO. 865/2023 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.46/2020 FOR THE O/P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 504, 506, 324, 307 R/W 149 IPC AND 2(C) AND 25(1-B) (C), 27(1) OF ARMS ACT AND SECTION 2(B) OF KPDLP ACT, PERTAINING TO MANGALORE NORTH P.S PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE II JMFC AT MANGALORE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - accused Nos.2 and 8 are before the Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.865/2023 and its continuance on a split charge that is drawn against them. 2. Heard Sri. Mahammad Anwar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Crl.P.No.15719/2025, Sri. Imtiaz B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2875/2025, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 in both the cases and have perused the material on record. 3. The petitioners along with other accused get embroiled in a crime in Crime No.46/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 504, 506, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 2(c), 25(1-B)(c) and 27(1) of the Arms Act and Section 2(B) of the KPDLP Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 4. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet and the matter is tried before the concerned Court in C.C.No.612/2021. The concerned Court on the persons available for trial, tries and acquits them of all the offences on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed in driving home the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The petitioners at the relevant point in time were not available for trial. Therefore, a split charge is drawn against them in S.C.No.58/2023 c/w S.C.No.120/2023 and S.C.No.206/2023 notwithstanding the fact that accused Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are acquitted of the same offences. The reasons rendered for acquittal are as follows: "22. C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.09.2020gÀAzÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ¸Áé¢üãÀvÁ ªÀĺÀdj£À ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ZÁ¸Á-14 ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï £Ë¥sÁ¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ¸Á-15 ±ÀA±ÀÄ¢Ýãï EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß D¸Á-16 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 17 gÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɹzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÁQëUÀ½AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.09.2020 ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ¸Áé¢üãÀvÁ ªÀĺÀdgÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-37gÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤¦-37(J) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 37(©)gÀAvÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ ¥ÀæwPÀÆ® ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤¦-37gÀ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ UÉÆwÛ®è, ¤±Á£É ¦-37PÉÌ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è 9£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß J°èAiÀÄÆ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DAiÀÄÄzsÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀ®ªÁgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹PÉÆAr®è, vÀ®ªÁgÀÄ £ÉÆÃr UÀÄgÀÄw¸À®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV ¥ÀæwPÀÆ® ¸ÁPÀëöåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀÄr¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀPÁðj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀÄ ¥Án ¸ÀªÁ°UÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À¹zÁUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj CªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¤±Á£É ¦-37gÀAvÉ ªÀĺÀdgï ªÀÄÄSÉãÀ 9£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ vÀ®ªÁgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß C®èUÀ¼É¢zÀÝ®èzÉ, vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¤±Á£É ¦-38 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 39 gÀAvÉ ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¤gÁPÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ¸Áé ¢üãÀvÁ ªÀĺÀdj£À - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 ¸ÁQëAiÉÄAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ¯ÁzÀ ZÁ¸Á-14 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 15 gÀªÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ ¥ÀæwPÀÆ® ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÁV ¥Àjt«Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 23. C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ WÀl£É¬ÄAzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀ ZÁ¸Á-1jAzÀ 3gÀªÀjUÉ aQvÉì ¤Ãr UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ DAiÀÄÄzsÀU½AzÀ ZÁ¸Á-1jAzÀ 3gÀªÀjUÉ DzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¸ÁQë JAzÀÄ, ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ ZÁ¸Á-17gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß D¸Á-14gÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë «ZÁgÀuÉ £Àqɹ CªÀjAzÀ ZÁ¸Á-1 jAzÀ 3gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ UÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-32 jAzÀ 34gÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-36gÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀ¯ÉèUÉ §¼À¹zÀ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ-1jAzÀ 19gÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ UÀÄgÀÄw¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀAvÉ C©üAiÉÆÃd£É ¥ÀgÀ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹zÀ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR ¸ÁQëUÀ¼Éà C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ ¥ÀæwPÀÆ® ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÁV ¥Àjt«Ä¹, WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÀ «ZÁgÀªÉà gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄUÉƼÀîzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ¸ÁPÀëöå¢AzÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃd£ÀªÀÅ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è. 24. C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ WÀl£É¬ÄAzÀ dRAUÉÆAqÀ ªÁºÀ£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ DzÀ ZÁ¸Á-21 ²æêÀÄw AiÀÄÄ. ªÉÆÃPÀë EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß D¸Á-18gÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɹzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÁPÁëöåzÀ°è - F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°èzÀÝ ºÉÆÃAqÁ DAiÀÄQÖêÁ ¸ÀÆÌlgï vÀ£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ £ÀA§gÀ £É£À¦®¯ï, ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀPÉÌ UÀ¯ÁmɬÄAzÀ dRA DVzÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ CªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ ZÁ¸Á-4gÀªÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁPÀëöå £ÀÄr¢zÀÄÝ, ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ CªÀgÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©r¹PÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-40 gÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¢éZÀPÀæ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-41 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ ¹rAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-42gÀAvÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀ ¸ÁPÀëöåªÀÅ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV PÀAqÀħgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÁPÀëöåzÀ°è CªÀgÀ DAiÀÄQÖêÁ ºÉÆÃAqÁ ¸ÀÆÌlgï UÉ ºÁ¤ DzÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÁPÀëöåªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀÄr¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀ ¸ÁPÀëöå¢AzÀ ZÁ¸Á-21gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀÆÌlgï UÉ WÀl£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÁ¤ DVzÉ JA§ CA±ÀªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. 25. C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ vÀQëÃj£À°è M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ PÉ.J.21¦-1021£Éà £ÀA§j£À PÁj£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ZÁ¸Á-20 ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzÀ ºÀĸÉÊ£ï EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß D¸Á-19gÀAvÉ «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɹzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÁPÀëöåzÀ°è - 7£Éà DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß ¸ÉßûvÀ, CªÀgÀ PÁgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝ, C°èAzÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt w½¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¸ÀzÀj PÁgÀ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁPÀëöå £ÀÄr¢zÀÄÝ CªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀ £ÉÆÃn¸À£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-43gÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ, CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-43(J) JAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ £ÉÆÃn¹UÉ ¤ÃrzÀ ¥ÀævÀÄåvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-44gÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ, CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-44(J)gÀAvÉAiÀÄÆ ºÁUÀÆ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©r¹PÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ gÀ²Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-45, CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦-45(J)gÀAvÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¹PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CzÀjAzÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃd£ÀªÀÇ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è. C®èzÉà ¸ÀPÁðj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ°£À°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¤±Á£É ¦-44gÀAvÉ CªÀgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ 7£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ CªÀjAzÀ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß CUÀvÀåvÉUÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤gÁPÀj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 26. F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¸À«ªÀgÀªÁV ºÉýzÀAvÉ WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀævÀåPÀë ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¸ÀܼÀ ªÀĺÀdj£À ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¸ÉÆvÀÄÛ ¸Áé¢üãÀvÁ ªÀĺÀdj£À ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ ¥ÀæwPÀÆ®ªÁzÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀ ¸ÁPÀëöå¢AzÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃd£ÀªÀÅ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀÑ«®è C®èzÉà ¸ÁQë «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹zÀ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR ¸ÁQëUÀ¼Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÀ¯ÉèUÉ §¼À¹zÀÝgÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀ¯ÁzÀ DAiÀÄÄzsÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®zÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäR UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR ¸ÁQëUÀ¼Éà C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV ¥ÀæwPÀÆ® ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÁV ¥Àjt«Ä¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁnøÀªÁ°UÉ M¼À¥Àr¹zÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ F ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀAvÉ ¥ÁnøÀªÁ°£À°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁzÀAvÀºÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ zÉÆgÉwgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. C©üAiÉÆÃd£À ¥ÀgÀ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹zÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÁPÀëöå¢AzÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¥Àæw¥Á¢¹zÀAvÉ WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÀ «ZÁgÁUÀ°Ã, DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà C¥ÀgÁzsÀzÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼ÀUÀ°Ã gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄUÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®èzÀAvÁVzÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀ ¸ÁPÀëöåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹zÁUÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è G¯ÉèÃT¹zÀÝ EvÀgÀ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉ £ÀqɹzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CzÀjAzÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃd£ÀªÀÇ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÁªÉUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ°è zÉÆgÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®è JA§ÄzÀÄ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 27. F ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀAvÉ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ MzÀV¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÁPÁëöåzsÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA.PÀ®A 143, 147, 148, 448, 324, 504, 506, 427, 307 ¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149, DªÀÄìð PÁ¬ÄzÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A 25 (1-©), (¹), 27(1) ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À ºÁ¤ vÀqÉ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 2®gÀAvÉ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼À AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CA±ÀªÀÇ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄUÉƼÀî¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ ¸À¢æ C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ°è «¥sÀ®ªÁVzÀÄÝ, 1 jAzÀ 8£Éà ¥ÀjUÀt£ÁA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀPÁgÁvÀäPÀªÁV GvÀÛj¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÄÝ, CAvÉAiÉÄà £ÀPÁgÁvÀäPÀªÁV GvÀÛj¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. 28. ¥ÀjUÀuÁ£ÁA±À 9: F ªÉÄÃ¯É 1 jAzÀ 8£Éà ¥ÀjUÀuÁ£ÁA±ÀUÀ¼À°è ¤ÃrzÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ, F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ F PɼÀV£ÀAvÉ DzÉòz¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ:- :DzÉñÀ: ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A 235(1)gÀAvÉ zÀvÀÛ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A 143, 147, 148, 448, 324, 504, 506, 427, 307 ¸ÀºÀªÁavÀ PÀ®A 149 DªÀÄìð PÁ¬ÄzÉAiÀÄ PÀ®A 25(1-©) (¹), 27(1) ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À ºÁ¤ vÀqÉ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 2(r)gÀAvÉ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄÄPÀÛUÉƽ¹ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ eÁ«ÄãÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ eÁ«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀÅ F PÀët¢AzÀ gÀzÁÝVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ DgÉÆæ 2, 8 ºÁUÀÆ 9gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ «¨sÀfvÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ ¹¹ 855/2023 ªÀiÁ£Àå JgÀqÀ£Éà ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð £Áå¬ÄPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¨ÁQ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ªÀÄÄzÉÝ ªÀÄ®ÄUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¢zÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁ¬ÄÝj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ. F wæð£À ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁR¯ÁzÀ J¸ï.¹ £ÀA§æ 120/2023 ºÁUÀÆ J¸ï.¹ £ÀA§æ 206/2023gÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ J¸ï.¹ £ÀA§æ 206/2023 gÀ°è EqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ." 5. If the reasons so rendered to acquit the other accused is noticed, it cannot stand different to accused Nos.2 and 8 in the subject petitions. If all other accused have been acquitted on the same reasons, the petitioners are tried even would not end up in conviction. 6. In that light, for an eventuality, permitting further trial would be wastage of precious judicial time. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioners. 7. 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 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. 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, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 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 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 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: 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. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31423 CRL.P No. 15719 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2875 of 2025 8. 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 these petitioners, that was not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioners. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petitions are allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.865/2023 pending before the II JMFC, Mangalore, stand quashed, qua the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5