- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9001 OF 2026 BETWEEN: GANESH K S/O. L. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.54, 1ST CROSS, KATHRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, SIDDARTHA LAYOUT, BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATA REDDY G.K, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHU KATTU P S, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.741/2024 P/U/S 399 AND 402 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE LXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH-63) AND FURTHER BE PLEASED Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 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 seeking the quashment of the continuance of S.C.No.741/2024, which is now continued on account of a split charge drawn against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. Heard Sri. Venkata Reddy, G.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner is accused No.7 gets embroiled in a crime along with others for preparation of dacoity as obtaining under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC. The concerned Court tries all the other accused, who are available for trial and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 acquits them on the score that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt in S.C.No.45/2017. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also similarly placed and he was not able to participate in the trial, as no summons were served upon the petitioner. Be that as it may. 5. I deem it appropriate to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as the reasons rendered by the concerned Court would undoubtedly become applicable to the case of the petitioner as well. The reasons so rendered are as follows: "REASONS 7. POINT NO.1:- In order to prove the facts of the above point though the prosecution got examined two witnesses i.e.,CW-1 & CW-6 as PW-1 & PW-2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 6 and further got marked four material objects at MO-1 to 9, the same do not hold any water as there are lot of variations and contradictions in the said oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution that are placed on record. Now let me examine it. 8. . Now let me examine it. 8. . First of all though the prosecution has got examined the complainant/Police official witness of CW-1 as PW-1 and though in his evidence he has deposed that on the alleged day he had received information from informant that on the alleged spot about seven persons - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing dacoity of the general public who passes there by holding deadly weapons & upon receiving the said information he along with two panchs/CW-5 & 6 and other officials/CW-7 to 12 went to the spot and noticed that some persons were hatching plan for committing dacoity and as such they apprehended the accused persons and got seized the material objects at Mos-1 to 9, the same is of no help to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as the version of the above witness with regard to the alleged incident & conducting of the spot cum seizer panchanama of Ex.P.2 & seizer of alleged MOs-1 to 9 from the custody of the above accused are not at all corroborated by the evidence of any independent eye & panch cum seizer witnesses. 9. And even otherwise since the said CW-1/PW-1 at page No.4 of his cross-examination has clearly admitted that 'He has not at all stated in his report that as to how he, other police official witnesses and panch witnesses have gone to the alleged spot and so also he has not at all stated in his return report as to how the above persons came back to the police station' then a shadow of doubt is created with regard to the happening of the alleged incident. 10. 10. Secondly though the prosecution has got examined the eye witness cum panch & seizer witness of CW-6 as PW-2, his version is also of no help to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as in his evidence he has turned completely hostile by deposing that on the say of the police he has put his signature to the document of Ex.P.2 at Janatha Bazaar of Kathriguppe and on the alleged day when he was took to the alleged spot, no body was there and thereafter the Police themselves have brought five persons and he do not know what the police have done and he do not remember the seizer of any materials and he cannot able to identify the above persons who were brought on that day. 11. And more over since the version of the above witness/PW-2 & the version of complainant/PW-1 does not prove that the accused were attempting to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 commit the alleged crime & also does not prove that the said accused had conceived the design of committing dacoity & since in a ruling of 2003 Crl.L.J. 1997, it has been clearly held that ‘To constitute an offence under section 399 and 402 of IPC, some act amounting to preparation must be proved’ & since in another ruling of AIR 1993 SCW 2009, it was held that ‘To constitute an offence under sections 399 and 402 of IPC, the prosecution must show that the accused have conceived design of committing dacoity’ then the versions of the above witnesses are also not at all helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 12. 12. So in view of the discussion made above, I am of the opinion that since the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt with cogent corroborative evidence of complainant, panch witnesses and other official witness & since there are lot of variations and contradictions in the oral version of PW-1 & PW-2 and since the prosecution has failed to prove the seizer of the alleged MO's.1 to 9 from the custody of the said accused through cogent independent eye and panch & seizer witness of PW-2 and since in a ruling of 2006 Crl.L.J. 1775 it has been clearly held that 'In a case under Section 399 & 402 of IPC When no public persons were summoned to witness the incident and when no signatures of the accused were obtained on seizer memo & no copy there off were furnished to any of the accused when the police did not recover the currency notes from the accused then the same makes the prosecution story as doubtful and the accused are entitled for acquittal' then I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has once again failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, I have answered the above Point No.1 in the negative. 13. POINT No.2:- In view of the above reasons, I proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 Acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 to 6 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 399 & 402 of IPC. The bail bond and surety bond of accused No.1 to 6 stands cancelled. M.O.1 to 9 is hereby ordered to be preserved for trail against accused No.7 in C.C. No.28839/2016." The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 were all charged of similar offences. The concerned Court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, acquits the other accused. If the other accused on the aforesaid reason have been acquitted, it cannot be that the petitioner if permitted to be tried would get convicted on the same evidence. 6. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 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 ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 “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 put by the public prosecutor that he had furnished the statements as per Exs.P-2 to P-4 as false. P.W.2 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 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, it is replica of charge made against accused Nos.1 to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 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. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34725 CRL.P No. 9001 of 2026 7. In the light of there being no evidence against any of the accused and the split up charge against the petitioners 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 the petitioner/accused No.7, 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.7 accepting the subject petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in S.C.No.741/2024 pending before the LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City, stands quashed, qua the petitioner/accused No.7. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20