- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 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. 13320 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MR. SURYANARAYANA REDDY (GUMMADI SURYANARAYANA REDDY) AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O G. RAMAKRISHNA R/A CHALAVEMULA VILLAGE AND POST PATLURU MANDALA, ANANTHAPURA DISTRICT ANDRAPRADESH-515414. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALATESH .H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION (REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. WAHEEDA .M.M, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.32941/2022 (CR.NO.227/2015 OF YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, MAIN C.C.NO.3725/2016 ) NOW PENDING IN THE FILE OF VII ACMM AT BENGALURU, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 353 R/W 34 OF IPC. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 of 2026 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.2 is before this Court calling in question the continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.32941/2022 (Crime No.227/2015 of Yelahanka Police Station, Main C.C.No.3725/2016) for offences punishable under Sections 504, 353 read with 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri.Malatesh H, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Smt.Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent 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.227/2015 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 No.1, who is available for trial and the petitioner not being available for trial, a split charge is drawn against him in - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 of 2026 C.C.No.32941/2022, 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 accused No.1 would become straight away applicable to the petitioner as well, as the offence is one to intentionally insult someone to disturb public peace and to deter a public servant from doing their duty as obtaining under Sections 504 and 353 read with 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. Therefore, he must be directed to face trial and come out clean like accused No.1 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. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 of 2026 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue before the Court relates to the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 353 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which is the offence intentionally insult someone to disturb public peace and to deter a public servant from doing their duty. The allegation is that all the accused together did indulge in intentionally insult someone to disturb public peace and to deter a public servant from doing their duty. The concerned Court answering the prosecution's allegations, acquitted accused No.1, who is available for trial on the following reasons: " 16. Further, in this case, there is no allegation of any enmity between police witnesses and the accused. No such defense has been put forward also. There is no law to the effect that the evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence, is to be discarded and/or unworthy of acceptance. For want of corroboration as to evidence of police/official witnesses from independent witness, the testimony of official witness cannot be disbelieved. Above position of law has been made clear in the judgment quoted below. Although the case quoted below has been delivered in respect of a crime contemplated in NDPS Act, the ratio regarding appreciation of evidence of official witness only has been considered...... Rizwan Khan V/S The State Of Chhattisgarh It has been held that......... There is no allegation of any enmity between the police witnesses and the accused. No such defence has been taken in the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 of 2026 statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. There is no law that the evidence of police officials, unless supported by independent evidence, is to be discarded and/or unworthy of acceptance. 17. It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non corroboration by independent witness. Therefore considering the ratios’ laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of INDIA in above cases, it is clear that there is no bar on this court to accept the evidence adduced by the witnesses who belong to police department. 18. Hence, if their evidence inspires the confidence as to truthfulness of evidence, in the opinion of this court in the light of above judgments, there is no bar to consider their evidence despite the prosecution being failed to examine independent witnesses. In this back ground on perusal of the evidence of PW1 to 3, the PW1 in his chief examination has deposed that, the accused have pushed himself and PW3 and obstructed to discharge their official duties. On the other hand the PW3 deposed that, the accused have abused him in fitly words, pushed him and thereby they have obstructed himself to discharge his official duties. As per the case of prosecution, the PW2 is not the victim however in his chief examination, he has deposed that the accused have obstructed him to discharge his official duty. There are lots of omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to 3. Therefore the evidence of PW1 to 3 does not inspires the confidence as to truthfulness of evidence, confidence of the court regarding the alleged incident. Therefore the oral testimony of PW1 to 3 is not reliable. The PW4 is the medical officer and PW5 is the investigation officer, their evidence is reliable only when the complainant and victims have fully supported the case of prosecution. As said above there are lots of omission and contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to 3. therefore the evidence of PW4 and 5 will not come to the aid of prosecution. evidence of the CW5 and 6 are the witness to spot Panchanama, the CW2 and 3 are examined as PW6 and 7 they turned hostile towards the case of prosecution. Even in the cross examination, nothing was - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 of 2026 elicited favoring of prosecution. Therefore, only on the strength of the evidence of PW1 to 3 the official witness, case of the prosecution cannot said to be proved as against the accused. Hence, I hold that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s.504, 353 r/w/s 34 of I.P.C. For the foregoing reasons and For the foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Acting Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., accused No.1 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable U/s.504, 353 r/w/s 34 of I.P.C. The bail bond of accused No.1 and surety shall stands cancelled. Office is hereby directed to preserve the records and property if any as case against A2 is splitup." 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 No.1 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. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 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 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 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 - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 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 - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 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 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 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 - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 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 accused No.1, 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.32941/2022 (Crime No.227/2015 of Yalahanka Police Station, Main C.C.No.3725/2016) now pending before the VII - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010601032026 NC: 2026:KHC:46990 CRL.P No. 13320 of 2026 Additional Chief Metropolitan 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.: 48