- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7044 OF 2026 BETWEEN: PRAKASH S S/O LATE SAKAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 94, THIGALARAHALLI VILLAGE, KALLAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA - 562 117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH M.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CCB (OWC) SQUAD, BENGALURU. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. KULKARNI H.D. POLICE INSPECTOR AGED ABOUT MAJOR CCB (OCW) SQUAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.12818/2025 REGISTERED BY KENGERI CCB (OCW) WEST SQUAD BENGALURU ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.233/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 OF IPC SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I ADDL.C.J.M BENGALURU (PRESENTLY REFERRED TO HONBLE COURT OF SESSIONS NOT YET NUMBERED) 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-accused No.7 is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.12818/2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri Manjunath M.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner, along with several others, gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.7/2004 for afore-quoted offences. The police after investigation file a charge sheet - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 against all accused. The petitioner at the relevant point in time was not available for trial. The accused who were available for trial were tried by the Court of Session. The concerned Court in S.C.No.599/2018 acquits accused Nos.1 to 4 in terms of its order dated 07.03.2025. Since the petitioner was not available for trial, a split charge was drawn and the proceedings are now sought to be continued and the petitioner has been taken into custody for the purpose of continuance of the trial and the split charge. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes this Court through the order of acquittal and would contend that accused No.7 is also entitled to the same benefit of acquittal for the same reasons that are rendered by the concerned Court for acquitting accused Nos.1 to 4. 5. Learned HCGP would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner also has to come out clean in a full blown trial, as accused Nos.1 to 4 have come out clean and the person who had escaped trial should not be shown any indulgence. She would otherwise contend that in the event the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 appeal is filed by the State and the acquittal is reversed, the trial must be permitted to be continued against the petitioner. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner, as observed hereinabove, gets embroiled in a crime along with accused Nos.1 to 4. He is drawn as accused No.7. Accused Nos.1 to 4, who are available for trial, are tried by the Court of Session in S.C.No.599/2018 and the Court of Session acquits accused Nos.1 to 4 in terms of the judgment dated 07.03.2025. The reasons so rendered for the said acquittal are as follows: REASONS "12. Points No.1 and 2; These points are taken up together to avoid repetition of facts. The Police Inspector of CCB (OCW) police station had filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging the offence punishable u/Sec.302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC, before learned I ACMM, Bengaluru. The allegations made in the charge sheet against the accused are as follows: 13. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the deceased Ramesh and his cousin brother Yellappa and also accused No.1 to 7 belonged same area and were known to each other. Accused No.2 was loving one Sangeeta but Yellappa married her. Therefore, theaccused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 No.2 thought if he murder Yellappa, he can marry Sangeetha, hence, he hatched a plan in the year 2001 along with accused No.1 and 2 and one Kumar @ Girale Kumar and they murdered Yellappa and in order to destroy the evidence, they threw the dead body at Kengeri Railway track. After this incidence, Sangeetha was having affair with Ramesha. So again, accused No.2 annoyed with this development, hence accused No.2 with the help of accused No.1, 3 to 7 murdered Ramesha thinking he will get Sangeeta, accordingly during last week of July 2003, he murdered Ramesha near Bandematt pathway by strangulating by rope from behind and all accused played their own role for murdering Ramesha. 14. Therefore, in order to destroy the evidence, they have thrown the dead body at railway track and on 25.7.2003 the police found the dead body and hence the railway police registered a case in their police station asUDR No.85/03 u/s.174 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter the Kengeri police have registered Cr. No. 59/2004. 15. It is submitted that during investigation and on interrogation of A1 to A4 in connection to Cr. No. 229/2017 for the offence u/sec. 302, 201 of IPC, they have confessed about the commission of murder of Ramesh, accordingly Cr. No. 233/2017 came to be registered against the accused and on securing the body warrant the police took them to the custody in connection to this case. Thereby the accused committed the above noted offence. 16. The prosecution in order to prove the aforesaid allegations made against the accused had adduced the evidence of as many as 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to 8 and got marked 53 documents at Ex.P.1 to 38. 17. Now let us examine the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses and documents produced on behalf of the prosecution in order to adjudicate whether their evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts or not. 18. P.W.1 the then PI of CCB police has deposed that on 06.6.2017 when he was investigating the case in Cr. No. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 229 of 2017 he arrested A1 to A7 and recorded their statement wherein A1 has confessed that in the year 2002 he alongwith A2 to 7 have murdered deceased Ramesh near Bandemat road by strangulating his neck with rope and thrown the dead body near railway track in between Kengeri and Hejjala. He further deposed that on interrogation A2 to A4 have given their voluntary statement and have given statement in consonance with the statement of A1 and hence on 07.06.2017 he lodged the complaint at Kengeri P.S. as per Ex.P. 1. and he has identified the Accused No. 1 to 3 before the court. 19. In the cross-examination by the learnedcounsel for the accused he has denied the suggestion that he has created the voluntary statement as per his whims and wish and he has denied the suggestion that deceased Ramesh had committed suicide, hence UDR was registered, but he has lodged the false complaint against the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that the contents of Ex.P.1 complaint are false and further he has denied that A1 to A4 have not given any voluntary statement before him. 20. PW. 2 and PW.7 the spot mahazar witnesses have deposed that they put their signature as per Ex.P.6(a)(b) and 9(b) and on 06.10.2017 near the Kengeri Railway track the CCB police have drawn mahazar as per Ex.P.6 and 9 and at that time A1 to A4 were in the custody of the police and police have stated that the accused have committed murder of Ramesh and hence they drawn mahazar and he identified two photographs as per Ex.P. 7 and 8 and deposed that they have not gone near the School and vacant site shown in the photos and they have identified A1 to A3 before the court and deposed that Ex.P. 9 is the notice which was issued to pancha. The statement of PW. 7 is marked as Ex.P. 21. 21. Learned P.P. treated the witnesses as hostile in part and in the cross-examination by the learned P.P. nothing has been elicited. The statement of the witness PW. 2 is marked as per Ex.P. 9 stating that the notice was issued to him in the office and the accused were interrogated in the police station itself is denied by him and he has denied that the police and the accused have gone to 7th A cross, Gandhinagar near School. They have denied the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 suggestion that the accused have stated that near the school the accused have hatched plan to kill Ramesh. The witnesses have denied other suggestions. The portion of the statement of the witness is marked as Ex.P. 10. 22. In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused they have denied the suggestions that they are deposing falsely to help the police. 23. PW. 3 the brother of deceased Ramesh has deposed that in the year 2017 Ramesh died and he has not identified the accused and deposed that he has not given any statement before the police and he do not know about the accused committed murder of Ramesh. The learned P P treated the witness as hostile and in the cross-examination by the learned PP. nothing has been elicited in support of the case of the prosecution and his statement before the police to the effect is marked as Ex.P.11. 24. PW. 4 the then PSI of Kengeri P.S. has deposed that on 07.06.2017 at about 8.30 pm when he was on duty CW. 1 had lodged the complaint as per Ex.P. 1 and hence he has registered Cr. No. 233/2017 and sent the FIR-Ex.P. 12 to the court and Ex.P.12(a) is his signature. He further deposed that he handed over further investigating to P.I. Giriraju. 25. In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused he has denied the suggestion that CW. 1 has not lodged any complaint and he is deposing falsely in order to help the complainant. 26. PW. 5 the sister-in-law of deceased Ramesh has deposed that she came to know that Ramesh died , but she do not know how he died, she do not know about the accused, she had not given any statement before the police in this regard and she do not know the fact that the accused have murdered her brother-in-law Ramesh. The learned P P treated the witness as hostile and in the cross-examination by the learned PP. Nothing has been elicited in support of the case of the prosecution and her statement before the police to the effect is marked as Ex.P.13. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 27. PW. 6 the Professor of Forensic Medicine has deposed that as per the request by PSI, Bangalore City Railway Police he has conducted the Postmortem of one unknown dead body on 29.07.2003 in between 10.35 a.m to 11.35 a.m and he has given the P.M Report to I.O as per Ex.P.4. He has further deposed that he had collected the tissues and send it to the department of Pathology. He had received the report from the Pathology department. Thereafter, he has given his opinion about the death of unknown male person. On perusal of original P.M Report and Histo Pathology report NO.MLC48/2003 dated 06.09.2003, he had opined that death was due to asphyxia as a result of ligature strangulation. Accordingly he had issued the opinion report marked as Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15. 28. In the cross-examination he has deposed that Ex.P. 14 is prepared by himself and he found that the dead body was of a 20 year old person. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to help the complainant. 29. PW. 8 is the I.O. who did investigation has deposed that on 17.07.2017 as per the order of Police Commissioner he took up further investigation and on 26.07.2017 took permission from the I ACMM to continue the investigation and on 30.8.2017 he arrested A1 to 4 and produced them before the court and recorded the voluntary statement of A1 as per Ex.P.22 wherein he has stated about the commission of offence and he will show the spot where he has destroyed the body and on 5.10.2017 recorded the voluntary statement of accused Venkatesh, Nagendra kumar and Raju and they have also stated as stated by A1 and their statements are marked as Ex.P. 23 to 25. 30. He further deposed that on 6.10.2017 visited the scene of offence alongwith the accused and panchas CW. 2 and 3 and since the accused have shown the spot, they drawn the panchanama as per Ex.P. 6 and took the photographs as per Ex.P. 7 and 8 and also drawn rough sketch as per Ex.P. 26 and 26(a) is his signature. 31. He further deposed that prior to that he issued - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 notice to CW. 2 and 3 as per Ex.P. 9 and he has identified his signature as per Ex.P. 9(c) and 7(a) and 8(a) and on 07.10.2017 he produced the accused before the court and on 10.10.2017 sent requisition to obtain the UDR information registered in Railway P.S. as per Ex.P. 27 and then on the same day obtained Ex.P. 2,3 and 5 and put the same in the file and on 11.10.2017 recorded the statement of CW. 10 to 12 and on 17.10.2017 , sent requisition to Railway PS in respect of UDR NO. 85/2003 to send the PM report , the said requisition is marked as Ex.P. 28. 32. He further deposed that on 14.11.2017 he sent requisition to Victoria Hospital to sent the report of UDR case and hence the Doctor of Victoria Hospital has sent the report as per Ex.p.14 to 16 and hence he had put up the same in the case file and on the same day he sent requisition to Police Commissioner to sent information regarding the UDR No. 85/2003 and on 17.11.2017 received the said report and on the basis of the same on 05.1.2004 he registered the case in Cr. No. 7/2004 for the offence u/sec. 302, 201 of IPC and on the point of jurisdiction he transferred the case file to Kengeri P.S. as per Ex.P.31 report. 33. He further deposed that on 18.11.2017 he sent requisition to the P.I of Kengeri Railway P.S. to sent the details of Cr. No. 7/2004 and on 30.11.2017 received the information from the Kengeri P.S. in connection to Cr. No. 7/2004 and then he registered Cr. No. 59/2004 for the offence u/sec. 302, 201 of IPC and received the charge sheet and the case file in that case as per Ex.P. 33. 34. The case diary of Cr. No. 59/2004 is marked as Ex.P. 34 and report is marked as Ex.P. 35, FIR is marked as Ex.P. 36 and the Notification is marked as Ex.P. 37 and other documents are marked as Ex.P. 17 to 20 and on 25.07.2003 he received the rough sketch of the place where the dead body was found, from the Railway police, the same is marked as Ex.P. 38 and on 5.12.2017 recorded the statement of CW. 13 and on 11.12.2017 recorded the statement of CW. 4 and 5 as per Ex.P. 13 and 11 and received the case papers in connection to Kengeri P.S. Crime No. 229/2017 and on 06.10.2017 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 recorded the statement of CW. 2 and 3 as per Ex.P. 10 and 21. He has identified the accused No.1 to 7 before the court. 35. He further deposed that on 15.12.2017 after completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused No. 1 to 4 by showing A5 to 7 as absconding. 36. From the evidence of aforesaid witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, it could be seen that PW. 1 is the PI who arrested the accused, PW. 2 and 7 are the spot mahazar witnesses, PW. 3 is the brother of deceased, PW. 4 is the P.I who registered the case, PW. 5 is the sister-in-law of deceased, PW. 6 is the Doctor who conducted the PM examination and PW. 8 is the IO who did the investigation. 37. The material witnesses i.e., the complainant, the seizure mahazar witnesses and also the spot mahazar witnesses have not deposed any incriminating evidence about the accused and they have not stated any thing about the accused committing the murder of the deceased. The complainant, the seizure panchas have been turned hostile and they have not deposed about the seizure. 38. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the accused have cross examined the witnesses , they are the police officials and the Doctors who deposed in their official capacity. 39. The evidence of the police officials, Investigating Officers and the Doctors is not supported by the evidence of independent witnesses. Only on the basis of the evidence of official witnesses and the Investigating Officer and the doctor who conducted the P.M examination, it can not be come to the conclusion that the accused has committed the alleged offences. On perusal of the over all oral evidence of the witnesses, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt with cogent, reliable and direct circumstantial evidence as the accused who have committed the murder of deceased. As such, in view of the aforesaid reasons this court is of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 the opinion that the prosecution has not proved the alleged guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this court of the opinion that accused are entitled to get benefit of doubt regarding commission of alleged offences. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the accused are liable to be acquitted for the offences punishable u/Sec.302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove Points No.1 and 2. Accordingly, this court answered Point No.1 and 2 in the Negative. 40. Point No.3: In view of my findings on points No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R Acting u/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No. 1 to 4 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/Sec. 302 , 201 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled. Office is hereby directed to preserve the file till the disposal of case against absconding accused." 8. The reason for acquitting accused Nos.1 to 4 is that the prosecution has failed to drive home the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and there was no circumstantial evidence or otherwise. The petitioner is now sought to be tried, as he was not available for trial for the same offences on the same set of evidence. Therefore, the eventuality would be an acquittal. In the eventuality of an acquittal, the petitioner being permitted to be tried would be a wastage of precious judicial time. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 Therefore, I deem it appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and obliterate the crime. However, with a riddle that in the event the State has preferred an appeal and the order of acquittal would be set aside by the Appellate Court. The subject proceedings against the petitioner would stand automatically revived. 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: “The petitioner is the accused in the case and he is shown to be the absconding. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 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 material evidence of the prosecutions is one and the same, as against all the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 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 when they went to the police station, they had not seen any accused persons in police station. However, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 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 against accused Nos.1 to 23 and 25 to 33 is compared with the allegation made against present - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 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. 18. In that view of the matter, present proceedings initiated against petitioner is liable to be quashed. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 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. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30484 CRL.P No. 7044 of 2026 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.12818/2025 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, stand quashed, qua this petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE HDK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5