- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 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.11135 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. JAGADISH @ JUMKI JAGGA @ JAGGA S/O LATE DHANANJAYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.149, 6TH CROSS SAMUDAYA BHAVANA, NEAR AJAAD NAGAR CHAMARAJPETE, BENGALURU-560018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRAPPA .K.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA STATION HOUSE OFFICER K.G NAGARA POLICE STATION BANGALORE- 560009. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001. 2. SHWETHA GOWDA W/O AVINASH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.219, SLV PLATINA APARTMENT NEAR GANDHI STATUE, HORAMAVU BENGALURU-560041. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN MATTER BEARING CC NO.9446/2022 PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XXXVII ADDL. CJM AT BANGALORE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN, WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.4 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 341, 323, 354, 355, 327, 504 R/W 34 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 said to be accused No.4 is before this Court calling in question the continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.9446/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 355, 327, 504 read with 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri.Chandrappa 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. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.179/2017 for offences punishable as afore-quoted. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet for the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 offences again as afore-quoted. The concerned Court acquits accused Nos.1 to 3 who are available for trial and the petitioner not being available for trial, a split charge is drawn against him in C.C.No.9446/2022, which is now hanging on the head of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasons that went into acquitting the other accused would become straight away applicable to the petitioner as well, as the offence is one relate to assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour, voluntarily causing hurt to extort property or compel an illegal act, and intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of public peace, as obtaining under Sections 341, 323, 354, 355, 327 and 504 read with Section 34 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: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 Therefore, he must be directed to face trial and come out clean like the other accused 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 punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 355, 327 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which relates to assault or use of criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour, voluntarily causing hurt to extort property. The allegation is that all the accused together did indulge in preparation for commission of dacoity of bracelet worth of 21 grams. The concerned Court answering the prosecution's allegations, acquitted all the other accused, who were available for trial on the following reasons: " 9. Point No.1 to 5 : Since all these points are interlinked, I have taken them together for common discussion in order to avoid the repetition. According to the prosecution, accused persons have committed an offences u/s.341, 323, 354, 355, 327, 504 r/w.34 of IPC. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined the complainant as PW.3. The PW 3 has deposed that she knows the accused persons, CW 2 is her husband, CW 3 is her mother in law, CW 4 is her sister in law. The accused persons have never abused or outraged her modesty or assaulted her. About 3 years ago, when she went to police station, they have took the signature on one document which is the complaint and it has marked as Ex.P.4. She has deposed that she does not know what has written in Ex.P.4. Thus she has totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The learned Sr.APP has cross examined her by treating as a hostile witness, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited from her mouth to prove the case of the prosecution. Since the complainant and injured herself has turned hostile, naturally the strong doubt would arise in the mind of the court. 10. The prosecution further examined one of the injured CW 7 as PW 1 and he has deposed that CW 1 is his sister in law. The accused persons never assaulted the CW 1 and the CW 1 never informed the incident to him over phone and he never gone to the spot. About 4 years ago, when he went to police station , they have took the signature on one document and it has marked as Ex.P.1. He has deposed that he does not know what has written in Ex.P.1. Thus he has totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 11. The prosecution further examined another victim CW 9 as PW 2 and he has deposed that about 34 years ago, CW 1 called the CW 7 over phone and informed that there was an accident, hence, he along with CW 7 have went to the spot and noticed there were about 50 persons in the spot and came to know about the case. He further deposed that the police enquired him but he has not seen the accused persons and also not seen assault on the CW 1, 2 and 7 and the accused persons have never assaulted him and he has not given any statement before the police, thus he is also turned hostile and not supports the case of the prosecution. 12. The prosecution further examined the CW 2, the victim and eye witness as PW 4 and he has deposed that he know the accused persons, CW 1 is his wife, CW 3 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 is his mother, CW 4 is his sister. He further deposed that the accused persons never abused or outraged the modesty of the CW 1 and he has not given any statement before the police, thus he is also turned hostile and not supports the case of the prosecution. 13. The prosecution further examined the CW 8 another victim as PW 5 and he has deposed that he does not know the accused persons, CW 2 is his sister's son, CW 1 is his wife, CW 7 and 9 are his sister's children. He further deposed that the accused persons never assaulted or abused them and he has not given any statement before the police, thus he is also turned hostile and not supports the case of the prosecution. 14. At request of learned senior APP these witnesses have been treated as hostile witnesses and permission was accorded to cross examine them. In the cross examination the learned Sr.APP suggested the case of the prosecution and same has been denied by the witnesses. The learned Sr.APP has cross examined the PW 2 to 5, but they failed to bring home the case of the prosecution from their mouth who were the eye witnesses. On the basis of the above evidence of PW.1 to 5 the court cannot come to conclusion that the accused persons have committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, naturally the strong doubt has arisen in the mind of the court. In a criminal justice system, if a tiny doubt arises in the mind of the court, benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused persons. In this case, not only tiny doubt but the strong doubt arise in the mind of the court, because the victims themselves have not supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, in my opinion it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused persons. Accordingly point under reference answered in the Negative. 13. POINT NO.2 : For the aforesaid reason and discussion, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.341, 323, 354, 355, 327, 504 r/w.34 of IPC. The bail bond executed by the accused No.1 to 3 stands cancelled. However, accused persons shall execute personal bond of Rs.50,000/ each by undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is filed. It is not a fit case to award victim compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C., Office is directed to keep the original file and property in split up case registered against accused No.4Jagadish @ Jumki." 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 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. and obliterate the same. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 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 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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 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 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 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 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. 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 - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 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. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in C.C.No.9446/2022 pending before the XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010510152026 NC: 2026:KHC:46983 CRL.P No. 11135 of 2026 Magistrate, Bengaluru City, stand quashed, qua the petitioner. iii. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21