The acquittal of co-accused on similar charges entitles the petitioner to quash proceedings against him due to the principle of parity, necessitating a lack of independent evidence.

ORDER :

(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.)

In this petition, petitioner-accused No.3 seeks quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.312/2025 arising out of Crime No.56/1999 registered by the 1^st respondent – police, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri, for the offence punishable under Sections 447 , 323, 324, 326, 342, 354, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-Richard Noronia @ Valerian Richard Noronia was arraigned as accused No.3 in C.C.No.24738/2008 along with three others. Thereafter, accused No.3 has absconded and the case against accused No.3 was split-up and split-up charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.312/2025. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections 447 , 323, 324, 326, 342, 354, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the judgment dated 05.04.2006 passed in C.C.No.106/2004 as against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in order to point out that in view of the acquittal of the aforesaid accused Nos.1, 2 and 4, the present petitioner who is accused No.3 in C.C.No.106/2004 (split-up case: C.C.No.312/2025), would be entitled to seek parity as held by this Court in the case of Mohan Vs. State of Karnataka and Another - Crl.P.No.5376/2024 dated 19.09.2024, in which it was held that acquittal of co-accused by the Sessions Court would enure to the benefit of the petitioner as under:

“The petitioner - accused No.6 is knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question a split charge sheet drawn against him in S.C.No.96/2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri. Lakshmikanth K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sowmya R., learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: On the night of 14.02.2015, an alleged incident leads the petitioner along with others for registration of a crime for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC in Crime No.306/2015. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.6. The police after investigation file a charge sheet in the said matter and the concerned Court registers S.C.No.423/2015. The petitioner - accused No.6 at the relevant point in time was not available for trial and therefore, the concerned Court tried the other accused and acquitted them on the score that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. On account of non-availability of the petitioner, the concerned Court draws up a split charge sheet in S.C.No.96/2022 and now is wanting to continue the trial for the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would also get acquitted, if trial is permitted in the case at hand and therefore, seeks quashment of the same on the score of parity.

5. Learned HCGP would however refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner has escaped trial and should not be shown any indulgence and he should come out clean in a full blown trial, as the other accused have come out clean. She 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 petitioner not being available for trial at the relevant point in time is a matter of record. Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice what is the finding qua the acquittal of other accused by the Court of Sessions in terms of its judgment dated 08.08.2022. The reason so rendered are as follows: