Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
Richard Noronia @ Valerian Richard Noronia, S/o. Bona Noronha – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, By Moodabidri Ps, Bengaluru District, Represented By Its State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
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 1st 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, t
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.
The acquittal of co-accused on similar charges allows for quashing proceedings against the petitioner due to the lack of independent evidence, promoting judicial efficiency.
The acquittal of co-accused leads to the quashing of proceedings against a petitioner when the charges are identical and no independent evidence supports further prosecution.
The acquittal of co-accused necessitates the quashing of charges against similarly situated accused, reinforcing the doctrine of parity in criminal proceedings.
The doctrine of parity applies, allowing for the quashing of proceedings against an accused when co-accused have been acquitted on similar charges.
In the absence of independent evidence against an accused where co-accused have been acquitted, proceedings should be quashed to uphold judicial efficiency.
Point of law: Quash of criminal proceedings – Dismissed - Judgment of acquittal is not admissible under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act and the benefit cannot be extended.
The acquittal of a co-accused does not automatically entitle other accused to quash proceedings; each case must be evaluated on its own merits.
Accused cannot be prosecuted where co-accused are acquitted on identical charges without independent evidence, as it violates principles of justice and due process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
