- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 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.11486 OF 2026 BETWEEN: ABDUL RAHIM S/O LATE K.BASHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.07, 2ND 'A' CROSS INDIAN HARDWARE ANEPALYA BANGALORE SOUTH ADUGODI BENGALURU-560030 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.LIKITHA M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001 2. HUSSAIN KHAN S/O AZEEZ KHAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO.4, NORTH STREET NEELASANDRA Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 BANGALORE KARNATAKA-560047 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R.1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.366/2014, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.185/2011 OF THE ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-46), BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC.498-A, 304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 DP ACT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is accused No.4 in S.C.No.366/2014. The petitioner along with others were drawn as accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304(B) of the IPC. 2. Accused No.1 - husband and the others, who were alleged of the ingredients of the offence, stood acquitted by the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 order of the concerned Court. They were initially convicted by the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.445/2012. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.441/2014, disposed of on 27.04.2026, acquits accused Nos.1 and 3, while the proceedings against accused No.2 stood abated on account of his death during the pendency of the proceedings. The only accused, who remains in the fray, is the present petitioner - accused No.4. The reasons rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench is as follows; "27. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution read in the light of the depositions of PW5 and PW7, there is considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the same fall short of the requirement of the ingredients of Section 304B of IPC and not sufficient enough to draw the inference under Section 113-B of Evidence Act. 28. Neither in the complaint nor in the deposition, there is no specific date and time of accused persons subjecting the victim to cruelty, demanding dowry. The amount of Rs.20,000/- allegedly paid by the father of the victim was purportedly towards repayment of a loan of the accused persons. This cannot be termed as a dowry. 29. The trial Court has however linked this payment and held the same to be the demand for dowry resulting in harassment, justifying the imposition of punishment even for - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. 30. Since this Court after appreciating the deposition of PW5 and PW7-maternal aunts of the victim found prosecution having failed to prove the harassment or ill-treatment shown before the dowry death, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B of IPC by the trial Court cannot be sustained. 31. The trial Court has accepted the evidence of PW1- father of the victim, PW2-mother of the victim, PW5 and PW7 maternal aunts, on the point of alleged payment of Rs.75,000/- and 200 grams of gold and other household items at the time of marriage. 32. It is necessary to note that in the complaint at Ex.P1, PW1 has deposed that he has five children and he is carrying on his livelihood as a normal ice supply worker with a luggage auto. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, neither in the complaint nor in the deposition of the witnesses, it is forthcoming, as to when this amount of Rs.75,000/- and 200 grams of gold were given. If the aforesaid amount was given at the time of marriage which is 'nikkah', it must have been witnessed by some independent witnesses. If it was paid earlier, which is not the case in any event, the source of Rs.75,000/- and 200 grams of gold ought to have been disclosed. 33. PW.1 in his deposition has stated as under: "1. ಮೃತ ೇಾ ಾನು ನನ ಮಗಳ, ಾಾಲಯದರುವ 1ೇ ಆೋ ಕೕಂ ೆ ನನ ಮಗಳ ೇಾ ಾನುವನು !ೊಟು# ಸು%ಾರು 6 ವಷ'ಗಳ (ಂ)ೆ ಮದು*ೆ %ಾ+ !ೊ,#)ೆ-ವ.. ಮದು*ೆ !ಾಲದ ಒಡ*ೆಗಳ, ಮೆಯ 1ಾ%ಾನು 2ಾಗೂ ವರದ3ಣ - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 75,000/- ರೂಗಳನು 1ೇ ಆೋ ೆ !ೊ,#)ೆ-ನು. ಸ5ಲ6 7ನ ನನ ಮಗಳ, ಅ9ಯ :ೆಾ ;ದ-ರು. ನನ ಮಗಳ ತನ ಅ<ೆ= ಮೆಯ ಕಷ#>)ೆ, ಹಣ !ೇಳ<ಾ=ೆ ಎಂದು ನಮ ಬ9 2ೇ9 ಆ ಾಗ ನB ಂದ ಹಣ <ೆ ೆದು!ೊಂಡು 2ೋಗುC=ದ-ಳ. ತಮ ಮೆಯ ಕಷ#>)ೆ ಎಂದು ನನ ಅ9ಯ ಕೕಮನ <ಾE ಹಣ !ೇಳC=ದ-ರು ಎಂದು ನನ ಮಗಳ ನಮ ಬಂದು 2ೇಳC=ದ-ಳ. ನನ ಮಗಳ ಮೃತ2ೊಂದುವ ಹ7ೈದು 7ನಗಳ Gದಲು ಅ)ೇ HೕC ನನ ಮಗಳ ನನ 2ೆಂಡCಯ ಬ9 ಕಷ# ಎಂದು 2ೇ9 ನB ಂದ ರೂ.20,000/- ಗಳನು ಪJೆದು!ೊಂಡು ತನ ಅ<ೆ=ಯ ಮೆ ೆ <ೆ ೆದು!ೊಂಡು 2ೋ;ದ-ಳ. ನಂತರ ನನ ಮಗಳ ೇಣು2ಾK!ೊಂಡು ಸC=)ಾ-Lೆ ಎನು ವ >:ಾರ ನಮ ೆ ೊ<ಾ=Eತು". 34. Thus, PW.1 in his deposition has alleged that he has given jewels, house hold items and Rs.75,000/- as dowry to the accused No.1 at the time of marriage. The deposition further indicate that victim was asking for financial help as there was difficulty in her in-law's house. That she had taken Rs.20,000/-, fifteen days prior to her death from PW.2-mother of the victim citing financial difficulty at her home. Thus, there is no allegation victim asking for the money pursuant to demand for dowry from the accused persons. Asking for financial help on the ground of difficulty cannot be termed as dowry demand. 35. Allegation of payment of this amount and receipt has been specifically denied by the accused persons in the cross- examination. Except examining parents and maternal aunts of the victim, no other independent witnesses have been examined regarding the payment of Rs.75,000/- and giving of 200 grams of gold. 36. Considering the financial condition even as disclosed by PW1, it was required on the part of the prosecution to have brought on record the independent witness regarding the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 source of his income, that is, if he had borrowed the money or if he had paid on his own. 37. PW5 in her deposition has stated as under; "£ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÉ®è ¸ÉÃj ¸ÀAvÉÆõÀ¢AzÀ 75,000 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ vÀmÉÖAiÀÄ°è ElÄÖ 2£Éà DgÉÆæAiÀÄ PÉÊUÉ PÉÆmÉÖªÀÅ." 38. A suggestion is made to the said witness, which reads as under; "£À£Àß ¨sÁªÀ CAzÀgÉ gÉõÁä ¨sÁ£ÀÄ vÀAzÉUÉ 75,000 £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 200 UÁæA a£ÀߪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è." 39. PW1, PW5 and PW7 have in unison deposed that they had paid certain sum out of their own volition to the accused No.1 towards "Joda" (alleged customary practice). 40. In view of the aforesaid depositions of PW1, PW5 and PW7 and in the absence of prosecution leading any cogent evidence regarding PW1, being capable of paying the cash of Rs.75,000/- and 200 grams of gold and also in the absence of specific time at which said amount was paid and in the absence of any independent witness having been examined, the benefit of doubt of this allegation in the light of categorical denial by the accused persons has to be given to the accused. 41. For the aforesaid reasons, following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) Judgment and order dated 24.04.2014 passed in S.C.No.445/2012 by the City Fast Track (Sessions) Judge, Bangalore City is set-aside. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 (iii) The accused/appellants are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A,304B IPC and sections 3 and 4 Of Dowry Prohibition Act. (iv) The accused/appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if their detention is not required in any other cases. (v) Fine amount deposited, if any shall be refunded to the accused/appellants. (vi) Bail bonds and sureties, if any, stands cancelled." 3. The reasons rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench is that the prosecution has not proved the guilt as required in law and acquits the husband and mother-in-law. The petitioner being the brother-in-law - accused No.4 was not present at the time of the trial or before the Co-ordinate Bench is now before the Court seeking quashment of the spilt charge that is drawn against him on the score that none of the ingredients would meet the offences that are alleged against the petitioner. The reason rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench would become applicable to the case of the petitioner as well. In the light of acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 3, the petitioner also stands acquitted. 4. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 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 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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 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 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 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 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. 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.” - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 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. 5. 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. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following; ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in S.C.No.366/2014 arising out Crime No.185/2011 of the Ashoknagar Police Station, pending on the file of the learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-46), Bengaluru, stand quashed, qua the petitioner. iii. It is made clear that in the event the acquittal of accused Nos.1 and 3 gets - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010522492026 NC: 2026:KHC:46998 CRL.P No. 11486 of 2026 upturned by a higher forum, the case against the petitioner - accused No.4 also would get automatically revived. iv. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23