Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3070
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
Mohammed Masood Ashfaq – Appellant
Versus
State By Mangaluru South Police Station – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2345 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP
The acquittal of co-accused under similar charges entitles the petitioner to quash proceedings against him based on the doctrine of parity.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8
(C) and 20(b)(ii)(a) - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.5919/2018 arising from Crime No.95/2011 for alleged offences under NDPS Act - Acquittal of co-accused and quashing of proceedings against them entitled petitioner to similar relief - Doctrine of parity applied. (Paras 1, 8, 10, 11)
(B) Acquittal of co-accused - The acquittal of co-accused by the Sessions Court extends benefit to the petitioner, as the charges against him are identical and no independent evidence exists to distinguish his case. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused No.2 in a case involving alleged offences under the NDPS Act. Co-accused were acquitted, and the petitioner sought quashing of proceedings based on the doctrine of parity.
Findings of Court:
The court found no evidence against the petitioner that was distinct from that against the acquitted co-accused, leading to the conclusion that further proceedings would be futile.
Issues: The main issue was whether the acquittal of co-accused entitled the petitioner to quash the proceedings against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquittal of co-accused creates a presumption of innocence for the petitioner, and without independent evidence, the proceedings against him should be quashed.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings quashed.
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.5919/2018 arising out of Crime No.95/2011 registered by the respondent – police, pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(C) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner – Mr. Mohammed Masood was arraigned as accused No.2 in C.C.No.4686/2011 along with two others, who were arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 in the charge sheet filed pursuant to FIR in Crime No.95/2011. Thereafter, case against the petitioner-accused No.2 was split-up and split-up charge sheet was filed against him in C.C.No.5919/2018. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections 8(C) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS Act.
4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the judgment passed by the Trial Court dated 25.11.2022 passed in C.C.No.4686/2011 in respect of accused No.1 and the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.1994/2012 dated 18.08.2018 in respect of accused No.3, in order to point out that in view of the acquittal and quashment of proceedings with respect to the aforesaid accused Nos.1 and 3 respectively, the present petitioner who is accused No.2 in C.C.No.4686/2011, prior to same being split up in C.C.No.5919/2018, 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:
"17. No doubt, as submitted by
