- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1907 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. DEVANGODI GANESH @ GANESH, S/O BABU, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT THANNIMANI VILLAGE, BHAGAMANDALA, MADIKERI - 571 247. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANJAN KUMAR C.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BHAGAMANDALA POLICE STATION, MADIKERI - 571 247, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. K. M. MUSTHAFA, S/O SHARAM, Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 AGED 40 YEARS, THANNIMANI VILLAGE, BHAGAMANDALA, MADIKERI – 571 247. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.62/2006 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.76/2001 OF BHAGAMANDALA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 146, 147, 148, 153(A), 448, 454, 427, 436 R/W 149 OF IPC, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. 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.3 is before this Court calling in question the continuance of proceedings in S.C.No.62/2006 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 146, 147, 148, 153(A), 448, 454, 427, 436 read with Section 149 of the IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 2. Heard Sri. Anjan Kumar C.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Deepthi Alva, 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.76/2001 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, 2, 4 to 73 who are available for trial and the petitioner not being available for trial, a split charge is drawn against him in S.C.No.62/2006, 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, 2, 4 to 73 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: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 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, 2, 4 to 73 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, 2, 4 to 73, who were available for trial on the following reasons: "18. As discussed above, PWs.2 to 5 are the star witnesses for the prosecution. They are the complainant and eye witnesses to the incident in question. The complainant himself has not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly PWs.3 to 5 who are the eye witnesses to the incident have also not supported the case of the prosecution. None of them have identified any of the accused in respect of the incident in question. If their evidence is perused, none of them have stated that - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 they have witnessed the incident in question. Their evidence show that after closing the shops, hotel and lodge, they were in the room situated on the back side of the building and they never came out of that room. After hearing pelting sound of stones to the shutters, they ran away to nearby forest and returned in the evening and found the articles had been burnt. Therefore there is not even a whisper in their evidence that any of these accused have broke open the locks put to the door of the hotel, committed house trespass by entering into that building or destroying the articles or setting fire to the articles. It is true that PW.2/Musthafa has suffered loss and he has been compensated by the Government by paying Rs.1,40,000/- to him and it is admitted by him that even now he is carrying on the same business in the same building by repairing the shops and hotel. Therefore just because he has suffered damages that does not mean that the accused are the cause for the incident. Further it is admitted in the cross-examination by the learned Advocate that on the particular day section 144 Cr.P.C. had been invoked in the village and there was police security. Therefore it is clear that there was tense in the village and some miscreants might have committed mischief in question. 19. It is true that the prosecution has produced M.Os.1 to 14 as the articles seized from the spot by PW.6/A.S.I.- Hassainar at the time of spot mahazar/Ex.P.5. The accused have disputed even the mahazar and seizure of these articles. Even considering that these articles were found at the spot and seized by the Investigating Officer, unless the accused are connected with the incident in question, the recovery of M.Os.1 to 14 from the spot will not in any way help the accused to connect the accused to the incident in question. 20. Prosecution has examined PW.1/ Joyappa who is a Secretary of Bhagamandala Grama Panchayath and he has issued shop licence as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 which is not disputed by the accused persons. So, in my opinion there is absolutely no material against the accused persons to attract any of the offences alleged against them. So, the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused since all material witnesses namely the complainant and the eye witnesses - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 have completely turned hostile. The other formal witnesses are not examined in the case as it serves no useful purpose. So, in my opinion further discussion on these charges is not necessary. So the prosecution has failed to prove these charges also. 21. Considering these factors, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused and accused are entitled for an acquittal. 22. In the light of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 73 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offences for which they are charged and they shall be set at liberty. Bonds if any taken by the accused persons stands cancelled. M.O.1 to 14 are ordered to b e preserved until further orders since the case against A-3/Devangodi Ganesha is split up and pending before this Court." 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, 2, 4 to 73 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 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 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 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 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 absconding, there is no second opinion that he is also entitled for the same benefit of doubt as he is extended for his - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 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 the papers and contents of it were not known to them. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 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 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 - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 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. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 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, 2, 4 to 73 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, 2, 4 to 73, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010086672026 NC: 2026:KHC:47457 CRL.P No. 1907 of 2026 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in S.C.No.62/2006 pending before the Court of Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, stand quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6