- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 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.10785 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SURESH V ALIAS SURESHA @ KOTHI S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O NO. 281, 4TH CROSS K.S. GARDEN, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY MS. NAZIMA ABDULLA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANAND .K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHO CHENNAMANAKERE ACHUKATTU POLICE STATION BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 070 AND ALSO REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. C. BABU REDDY S/O M. CHENNAPPA Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO. 38, ELECTRONIC CITY NEW NAGANATHAPURA LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 100. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA .M.M, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC NO.1211/2011 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.111/2018) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH- 66), BENGALURU INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 IS CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES ALLEGED TO BE P/U/S 395 OF THE IPC. 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 accused No.7 stands at the doors of the Court calling in question the continuance of the proceedings in SC.No.97/2009 by drawing up a split up charge sheet in SC No.1211/2011 against the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel Ms.Nazima Abdulla for Sri.Anand K, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP for the state. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 3. The petitioner along with others gets embroiled in a Crime No.2111/2008 for the offence punishable under Sections 395 of IPC. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was not available for trial and the accused, who were available for trail, were tried and the concerned Court by its order dated 30.04.2011 acquits accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. The case against accused Nos.3, 6, 7 and 9 a split up charge was drawn owing to their absence. The petitioner is accused No.7. The relevant portion of the order of acquittal dated 30.04.2011 reads as follows; "7. POINT No.1: In order to prove the case against accused, prosecution has examined PW-1 Babu Reddy, complainant in this case has turned hostile, PW-2, Shekar, who is eye witness to the incident has turned hostile, PW-3 Venugopal, who is seizure pancha in this case has turned hostile, PW-4 Bettaiah, who is hearsay witness, PW-5 Chandrashekar T.D, PC of Hanumanthanagar Police Station, PW-6 Anil Kumar, PSI of Chennammanakere Achukattu, PW-7 Vasudeva Nayak, Police Inspector of Chennammanakere Achukattu and PW-8 Noorulla Sheriff, Police Inspector of Chennammanakere Achukattu. 8. On perusal of evidence of PW-1 Babu Reddy, he has deposed that he has not seen the accused present before the Court. About two years back he was going home at Srinivasanagar. At that time two persons came on a bike and snatched the chain. He went to Police Station and informed the same. Police took his signature on a paper. Thereafter, police seized his chain and he identified his chain with Baba dollar. He also identified his signature on complaint Ex.P.1 and Panchanama Ex.P.2 as per Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.2(a) respectively. He further deposed that accused were not present at the time of Panchanama and police have not recorded his statement. He does not remember the date of incident, as it was two years - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 back. Hence, this witness has been treated as hostile by the prosecution. 9. PW-2 Shekar has deposed before the Court that he knows PW-1 complainant. He has not seen the accused present before the Court. He does not know anything about this case. When he was returning home after watching movie, police took his signature. He does not know regarding chain snatching. Police have not recorded his statement. Hence, this witness has been treated as hostile by the prosecution. In his cross- examination, he has deposed that he has not stated before the police as per Ex.P.4. 10. PW-3 Venugopal, who is seizure pancha, has deposed before the Court that he has not seen the accused present before the Court. Police have not seized anything in his presence. About two years back, police took his signature when he was passing in front of the Police Station. He identified his signature on Panchanama Ex.P.5. He further deposed that he does not know anything in this case and police have not recorded his statement. In his cross-examination by Senior Public Prosecutor, he has deposed that he has not stated before the police as per Ex. P.6. 11. PW-4 - Bettaiah has deposed before the Court that he has not seen the accused present before the Court. They have not snatched jewels, mobile and cash from CW-1 to 10 and 12 to 15. He does not know anything about this case. Police have not recorded his statement. In his cross- examination by Senior Public Prosecutor, he has deposed that he has not stated before the police as per Ex. P.7. 12. PW-5 Chandrashekar T.D, PC of Hanumanthanagar Police Station has deposed in his evidence that while he was on patrolling duty along with PC Mahesh and other staff, Police Inspector informed them that about 10-15 people were holding deadly weapons like chilli powder packet, razor and making preparation to commit dacoity. After securing panchas, they went to the spot and surrounded the 15 people who were in possession of chopper, long and chilli powder packet and apprehended 13 accused. Two of them escaped from the spot. PSI conducted Panchanama and seized deadly weapons under the Panchanama Ex. P.8. 13. PW-6 Anil Kumar, PSI of Chennammanakere Achukattu Police Station has deposed in his evidence that on 21/05/08, complainant Babu Reddy lodged complaint Ex.P.1 before him. He registered the case under his Police Station Cr.No.111/08 and sent FIR Ex.P.9 to the Court and his superiors. On 22/05/08, he went to the spot of incident and - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 conducted Panchanama Ex.P.2 in presence of panchas. He handedover further investigation of Police Inspector. 14. PW-7 Vasudev Nayak, Police Inspector of Chennammanakere Achukattu Police Station has deposed in his evidence that on 25/05/08, PSI of Hanumanthanagar Police Station received the information that accused persons were making preparation to commit dacoity. As per the information, he apprehended 13 accused persons and seized the deadly weapons in their Police Station and conducted the Panchanama and lodged the complaint on behalf of State before him. He registered the complaint in their Police Station Cr.No.136/2008 and sent FIR to Court and his superiors. He subjected the seized articles in PF. He recorded the voluntary statement of the accused he recorded the statement of witnesses Madhukumar, Vinay, Chandrashekar, Harish, Ramachandra, Babu, Prakash, Muniraju, Papuraju, Mahesh and Sadiq Pasha. The spot of incident comes within the jurisdiction of Chennammanakere Achukattu Police Station. Therefore, he transferred the case papers to Chennammanakere Achukattu Police Station. 15. PW-8 Noorulla Sheriff, Police Inspector of Chennammanakere Achukattu has deposed in his evidence that on 28/06/08 he received the case papers of this case. He verified the file. He visited the spot of offence alongwith complainant. He deputed his staff in search of accused. On 23/05/08, he received the information about arrest of accused in Hanumanthanagar Police Station Crime number. On 24/05/08, he took complainant of Hanumanthanagar Police Station and accused were identified by the complainant. He submitted requisition to Hon'ble Court to secure accused under Body Warrant. On 02/06/08 as per the orders of Court, he obtained the police custody of accused. On enquiry, accused gave voluntary statement before him. He also recorded the statements of Padmanabha Bhat, Murthy, Babu @ Bettaiah, Reddy, Venkatesh, Devaraj and also recorded the further statement of complainant. On the basis of the voluntary statement given by the accused No.1, he took him and panchas to his house and produced one gold chain, tow mobiles, 4 longs, 4 choppers and one knife before him. Accused No.2 produced iron rod before him, accused No.3 produced mobile and chopper, accused No.4 produced one iron chopper, accused No.5 produced iron chopper, accused No.6 produced one mobile and knife, accused No.7 produced iron chopper, accused No.8 produced long and accused No.9 produced long before him. He seized the said articles under the Panchanama in presence of panchas. He produced all the accused alongwith remand application before the Court. He received all the case papers - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 from Hanumanthanagar Police Station. After completion of investigation, submitted the chargesheet before the Court. 16. On perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses, complainant has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Prosecution failed to prove the complaint through the complainant. Eye witness to incident PW-2 has turned hostile Independent witnesses like PW-4 and panch witnesses PW-3 have turned hostile. Prosecution failed to prove the Panchanama through panch witnesses. PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 are the of the Police Officials. They are interested to get conviction of the accused. The versions of PW-5 to 8 are not supported by any of the independent witnesses. There is no evidence that accused No.1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 alongwith accused No.3, 6, 7 and 9 in split up case, committed dacoity by snatching Rs.1,25,000/-, one gold chain, two mobile phones, totally worth Rs.1,45,000/- from CW-1 and CW-8 to CW-12, 14 and 15 by threatening them with deadly weapons such as long, club, and knife. Accordingly, I hold that prosecution failed to establish the offence under Sec.395 of IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 17. On appreciation of material placed on record almost all the material witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing is elicited during the cross-examination by the prosecution as to why the material witnesses have turned hostile and given a clear go by to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt against the accused persons for the offence. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative 18. POINT NO.2: In view of my findings to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Accused No.1,2,4,5 and 8 are hereby acquitted under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sec.395 of IPC. Accused No.1 and 8 are set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other case. The ball bonds and surety bonds executed by accused No.2, 4 and 5 stands cancelled. MO-1 to MO-12 are ordered to be kept till disposal of split up case against accuses No.3,6,7 and 9." - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 4. In the light of the reasons so rendered by the concerned Court to acquit accuses Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, if perused, would clearly become applicable to the case of the petitioner as well and as the offence is docity and it is a collective act and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The same reason becomes applicable to the petitioner. If the trial would be permitted to the petitioner, it would undoubtedly end in acquittal as those reasons cannot mean that the others get acquitted and the petitioner would get convicted. 5. 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. 6. 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: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 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 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 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 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 Police Station, is hereby quashed insofar petitioner is concerned. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 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. 7. 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. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in S.C.No.1211/2011 pending before the LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH-66), Benglauru, stand quashed, qua the petitioner. - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010495022026 NC: 2026:KHC:46981 CRL.P No. 10785 of 2026 iii. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15