- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7029 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. SHANKAR @ KANEER, S/O JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.220, 3RD CROSS, NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE, RAJENDRA NAGAR, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNTAKA, STATE BY KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SMT. SHWETHA KUMARI, AGED MAJOR, OFFICE AT I.D.B.I. BANK, R.A.C., 412, JINDAL CENTRE, 4TH BLOCK Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034. …RESPONDENTS (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 ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.423/2017 OF KORAMANGALA POLICE NOW WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 39TH ACJM, AT BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 392 OF IPC. 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 this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.423/2017 registered for an offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Narayanaswamy K.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner - accused No.3 gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.597/2014 for an offence punishable as afore-quoted. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet for the offence again as afore-quoted. The concerned Court acquits accused No.2 who is available for trial and the petitioner not being available for trial, a split charge is drawn against him in C.C.No.423/2017, 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 accused No.2 would become straight away applicable to the petitioner as well, as the offence is one of preparation for commission of dacoity or otherwise as obtaining under Section 392 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 CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 Therefore, he must be directed to face trial and come out clean like accused No.2 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 offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC, which is preparation for commission of dacoity or otherwise. 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 accused No.2, who was available for trial on the following reasons: "10. CA±À £ÀA.1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 - F CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÀPÉÆÌAzÀÄ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁPÀëöå «±ÉèÃóµÀuÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÁªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ¦à¸À®Ä JgÀqÀÄ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ KPÀ PÁ®zÀ°è ZÀZÉðUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ. 11. C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ¥ÀgÀªÁV zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è MlÄÖ 14 ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀgÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ D¥Á¢ü¹zÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä ZÁ¸Á 13 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¸Á 1 JAzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤¦.1 jAzÀ ¤¦.3 gÀAvÉ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄw¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ. 12. ¥Áæ¸Á1 - ²æÃ. gÀÄzÀæ¥Àà UÀÄjPÁgï, ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ ¦.J¸ï.L. - EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ¢: 22.08.2014 gÀAzÀÄ ZÁ¸Á 1 gÀªÀgÀÄ gÁwæ 8.10 UÀAmÉUÉ - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ¤ÃrzÀ ¤¦ 1 °TvÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹ UÀÄ£Áß £ÀA.597/2014 gÀ°è £ÉÆAzÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¤¦2 ¥Àæ.ªÀ. ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ ZÁ¸Á 1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁgÀ£Éà ¢£À ¨É½UÉÎ 9.00 jAzÀ 9.30 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ¥ÀAZÀªÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¤¦3 gÀAvÉ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÁPÀëöå £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 13. MmÁÖgÉAiÀiÁV D¥Á¢¹zÀ WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ°è£À ¥Áæ¸Á 1 gÀªÀgÀÄ E¯ÁSÁ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¥ÀævÀåPÀëzÀ²ð ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ¸ÁQëUÀ½UÉ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj ¸ÀªÀÄ£ïì eÁj ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ°è «¥sÀ®gÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀPÁgÀt ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ºÁdgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ «¥sÀ®UÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÁPÀëöåzÁgÀgÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÉÊ ©qÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ZÁ¸Á 1 gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÁPÀëöåªÀÅ §ºÀÄ ªÀÄÄRåªÁVzÀÄÝ, CªÀgÉà «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥Áæ¸Á 1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Éưøï E¯ÁSÁ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÁPÀëöå ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÁjAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. »ÃUÁV ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁ£Àå C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ¥ÀPÀëzÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÉÆõÀgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀPÀðªÁV ºÁUÀÆ ¤¸ÀìA±ÀAiÀiÁwÃvÀªÁV gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ°è ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð «¥sÀ®gÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj C£ÀĪÀiÁ£ÀzÀ ¯Á¨sÀªÀ£ÀÄß 2£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ ¤Ãr CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ½AzÀ «ªÀÄÄPÀÛUÉƽ¹ ©qÀÄUÀqÉUÉƽ¸À¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀlÄÖ £À£Àß ¤tðAiÀÄPÉÌ §AzÀ F ªÉÄð£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀPÁgÁvÀäPÀªÁV GvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 14. CA±À-2 - ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÉñÀ zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 248(1) gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ EgÀĪÀ ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ 2 £Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨sÁ.zÀA.¸ÀA. PÀ®A 392 gÀrAiÀÄ°è zsÀAqÀ¤ÃAiÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ½UÉ zÉÆõÀªÀÄÄPÀÛgÉAzÀÄ ¤zsÀðj¹ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A.437(J)gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §gÉzÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ eÁ«ÄãÀÄ ªÀÄÄZÀѽPÉAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄîä£À« CªÀ¢ü ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ gÀzÀÄÝUÉƼÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ." 8. The reason so rendered by the concerned Court is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. If that be the case against the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 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./Section 528 of the BNSS 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: - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 “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. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 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 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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 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 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- - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 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. 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 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010335032026 NC: 2026:KHC:38282 CRL.P No. 7029 of 2026 not charged against others, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.423/2017 pending before the 39th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, stand quashed, qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53