- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7691 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SIDDIQ IBRAHIM MADOOR S/O IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT 1-413/22, K.C.NAGARA, MANGALURU, TALAPADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA, KARNATAKA - 575 023 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TALHA ISMAIL BENGRE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. MR ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS KUTTAR MAJAL THOTA MUNNUR POST AND VILLAGE MANGALURU - 575 017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 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 FIR AND CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN CR.NO.54/2010 IN AND IN SPLIT UP CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.321/2015 AND WHICH GOT REGISTERED AS L.P.C NO.23/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 341, 342, 346, 348, 364, 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE COURT OF THE II J.M.F.C MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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.6 is before this Court calling in question the continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.321/2015 which is registered as LPC No.23/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 342, 346, 348, 364, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 2. Heard Sri. Talha Ismail Bengre, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.54/2010 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 accused Nos.1 to 5 who are available for trial and the petitioner not being available for trial, a split charge is drawn against him in C.C.No.321/2015, 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 Nos.1 to 5 would become straight away applicable to the petitioner as well. If it is a collective act, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner cannot be singled out for a different treatment. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 5. Learned HCGP would, however, refute the submissions contending that the petitioner has escaped trial. Therefore, he must be directed to face trial and come out clean like accused Nos.1 to 5 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 as afore-quoted. The allegation is that all the accused together did indulge in the commission of the offence. The concerned Court answering the prosecution's allegations, acquitted accused Nos.1 to 5, who were available for trial on the following reasons: "28. P.W-7 is the Investigation Officer. He has deposed that on 19.03.2010 at about 8.30 PM, C.W-1 came to the police station and lodged written complaint as per Ex.P-3, based on which he has registered the case and forwarded FIR Ex.P-11 to the Court. Thereafter, he sent P.W-2 to Wenlock Hospital, as he had injuries. Thereafter, he has enquired P.W-2, who told him that all the accused persons are the residents of Ullal and they went to Ullal. Thereafter, he has taken his subordinate staffs and P.W-2 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 to Ullal and searched in surrounding places. He checked one Maruthi Omni car, which came from Talapadi and found six persons in the car. P.W-2 has identified them and told that it was they who assaulted him. On enquiry, those six persons confessed the guilt. Thereafter, he has arrested them and seized the car bearing registration No.KA-19-MA-4998. One towel measuring 3' X 2.5' length found in the car. Since it was told that the said towel was used to gag the mouth of P.W-2, same has been sized. P.W-6 has identified the towel, which is marked at M.O-1. He has identified the car through Ex.P-5 photographs. On the same day, he has taken P.W-2 to Yemmekere junction and prepared spot mahazar as per Ex.P-4 and sketch as per Ex.P-12. Thereafter, P.W-2 has own the place where he was confined by the accused persons. He has continued the Ex. P-4-mahazar in that place and prepared sketch as per Ex.P-13. On the same day, he has recorded statement of C.W-5 to 7. On 21.3.2010 he has recorded the statements of C.W-2 to 4. On the same day he has sent requisition to give ownership details of the abandoned building and the wound certificate of P.W-2. He has received the wound certificate and certificate of ownership and filed charge-sheet against the accused. 29. During the cross-examination by the learned defense counsel, P.W-7 has stated that the complaint (Ex.P-3) written by the police staff. He cannot say who is that staff. He has admitted the suggestion that C.W-4, 7 and 8 accompanied C.W-1 to the Police Station to lodge complaint. After registering the case, he has sent C.W-1 to the hospital for treatment. He has stated that at the time of the arrest and conducting spot mahazar, he was accompanied by 3 to 4 police staffs. Those 3 to 4 police staffs are not cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet. It is elicited that he has arrested the accused at 11.30 PM and brought them to the Police Station. The place of arrest of the accused situated about 15 KMs away from Mangaluru South Police Station. He has stated that he got information about the arrival of the accused through police informers. At the time of arrest, C.W-7 and 8 were not present. It is elicited that on Someshwara-Uchila Road there will be heavy traffic flow. Shops are is situated at Kotekar Junction. It is elicited that Jeppinamogaru, Morgan's Gate, Mangaladevi, Yemmekre Junction, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 Pandeshwara Police Station lies in a same route. The place called Mahakalipadpu also situated on the same route. The said place is situated about 3 KM away from Mangaluru South Police Station. City buses would ply in the said route at the frequency of ten minutes. It is elicited that temple is situated at Yemmekere junction. At 6.30 to 7.00 AM, devotees will come to the said temple. P.W-7 admitted the suggestion that during the course of investigation, he came to know that father of P.W-2 availed loan of Rs.2,26,000/- from the father of accused No.1. He has denied the suggestion that there was a settlement talk between the father of P.W-2 and father of accused No.1 in relation to the settlement of said loan. He has further denied the suggestion that P.W-2 has lodged false complaint against the accused for the reason that the settlement was not taken place. He has denied the suggestion that the accused persons are nothing to do with this case. 30. Having gone through the evidence available on record, it is clearly forthcoming that the testimony of P.W-2 is not corroborated by the testimony of independent witnesses. The very case of the prosecution that P.W-3 gave car bearing registration No.KA-19-MA- 4998 to accused No.1 through P.W-4 is not supported by the testimonies of P.W-3 and 4. Therefore, burden lies on the prosecution to prove that accused No.1 possessed car on 19.03.2010. Admittedly, the said car registered in the name of wife of P.W-3. Testimony of P.W-2 is inconsistent and thus not believable. Though, he has stated that the accused persons dropped him near Mahakalipadpu at about 11.00 AM, the complaint was lodged at 8.30 PM on the same day. The prosecution has not explained the delay in lodging the complaint. It is elicited that the place called Mahakalipadpu lies very near to Mangaluru South Police Station. City buses are plying in the said route at a frequency of ten minutes. It is elicited during the cross- examination of P.W-2 and P.W-7 that there was money transaction between the father of accused No.1 and father of P.W-2. It is elicited that father of P.W-2 availed heavy loan from the father of accused No.1. It is the specific defense that accused persons were falsely implicated in order to evade payment of said loan. The very delay in lodging complaint and inconsistent version of P.W-2 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 makes the prosecution case highly improbable and same cannot be believed. There is no corroborative evidence to support the testimony of P.W-2. Medical officer stated that P.W-2 had no injuries. He has opined that there is no medical evidence to show that he was subjected to physical assault. In the light of the admission by P.W-7 that there was money transaction between the father of P.W-2 and that of accused No.1 and that father of P.W-2 owed the said money, false implication cannot be ruled out. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused persons are entitled for acquittal. In the result, Point No.1 to 10 answered in the negative. 31. Point No.11: In view of findings recorded on Point No.1 to 10, I proceed to pass the following: :O R D E R: Acting under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 to 5 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 341, 342, 346, 348, 365, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. Bail bond of the accused and surety bond shall stand cancelled. Preserve the entire records and case properties till the disposal of split-up case registered against accused No.6 in C.C.No.321/2015." 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 accused Nos.1 to 5 for passing an order of acquittal, it cannot be said that the petitioner would get convicted, if a trial is - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 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: “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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 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 accused including the non-appealing accused No.1, who is said to be - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 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, they admit police having taken their signatures on - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 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 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 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. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 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 accused Nos.1 to 5 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 accused Nos.1 to 5, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010367222026 NC: 2026:KHC:46751 CRL.P No. 7691 of 2026 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.321/2015, which is registered as LPC No.23/2024 pending before the Court of II JMFC, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District stand quashed, qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6