- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13002 CRL.P No. 14810 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14810 OF 2025 BETWEEN: GOPALA POOJARI S/O VENKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, COOLIE WORK, R/O DINDINAKOPPA LINGAPURA VILLAGE, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK 3 577 204. &PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETHAN C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALURU POLICE STATION, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU &RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.46/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.DISTRICT Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13002 CRL.P No. 14810 of 2025 AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE. 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 before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.46 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri Chethan C, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner is accused no. 3. The petitioner along with others gets embroiled in a crime for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC inter alia in Crime No. 103 of 2008. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were tried before the Court of Session in S.C. No.44 of 2009. The Court of Session, owing to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13002 CRL.P No. 14810 of 2025 the fact that there was no evidence against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, acquits accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner herein, at the relevant point in time, was not available for trial and a split charge sheet was drawn against the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court, seeking excise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, to obliterate the proceedings on the score that the petitioner/accused No.3 would be entitled to the same relief that accused Nos.1 and 2 have been granted by acquitting them of the offences. 4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions contending that the petitioner/accused No.3 who has escaped trial should not be shown any indulgence, but would admit the fact that the State has not preferred any appeal against the said order of acquittal in SC No. 44 of 2009. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13002 CRL.P No. 14810 of 2025 6. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Three accused get embroiled in Crime No. 103 of 2008 for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Two of them who were available for trial were tried in SC No. 44 of 2009. The Court of Session acquits the accused Nos.1 and 2 who were available for trial, on the score that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. The petitioner being accused No.3 is also entitled to the same relief that is granted by the concerned Court in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2, but the fact that he has not faced trial would undoubtedly become an impediment. 7. In the normal circumstance, a person who escapes trial should not be shown any indulgence at the hands of the Court. But the trial, even if permitted, is going to end in acquittal of the petitioner, as accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been acquitted of the offence alleged against them by the concerned Court. Therefore, permitting trial against this petitioner who would eventually be acquitted would become wastage of precious judicial time. Only to save the precious judicial time which can be utilized for any other purpose, I deem it - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13002 CRL.P No. 14810 of 2025 appropriate to entertain the subject petition and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned proceedings in S.C.No.46 of 2025 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga stand quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 65