In the absence of independent evidence against an accused where co-accused have been acquitted, proceedings should be quashed to uphold judicial efficiency.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the continuation of proceedings against him in C.C.No.7653/2016 for an offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri. Rajashekara R.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner along with others gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.542/2015 for the aforesaid offence. The police after investigation, file a charge sheet in C.C.No.17204/2015. The petitioner at the relevant point in time was not available for trial. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were tried in S.C.No.490/2016 and against the petitioner, a separate split charge was directed to be framed on account of his absence during the trial. It transpires that the concerned Court, by its judgment dated 25.07.2018, acquits accused Nos.2 and 3 who were tried on the score that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Since the offence is the one punishable under Section 397 of the IPC, which would be a collective act, the petitioner, if even permitted to be tried, at this juncture, would not lead to anything, but acquittal. In view of the said circumstance, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner would be a waste of precious judicial time. In the light of that fact though such accused would escape trial should not be shown any mercy owing to the fact of the aforesaid observation of judicial time being precious, I deem it appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. 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 , 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 , (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 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 , ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to the following effect:

“As the cas