The acquittal of a co-accused entitles other accused to similar relief under the doctrine of parity when no independent evidence exists against them.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.781/2023 arising out of FIR in Crime No.126/2019 registered by the Moodabidre Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodbidri for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 324 , 504 read with Section 34 of IPC .

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 petitioners – Mohammed Shahajan and Shakeer Husain were arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 along with another person, who was arraigned as accused No.3 in the charge sheet in C.C.No.452/2020 pursuant to FIR in Crime No.126/2019. The offences alleged against the petitioners and other accused are under Sections 341 , 324 , 504 and 34 of IPC .

4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the judgment dated 08.07.2024 passed in C.C.No.452/2020 as against accused No.3 in order to point out that in view of the acquittal of the aforesaid accused, the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2, prior to same being split up, 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 the learned Public Prosecutor, during the course of cross examination of PW-1 to 3, except denial, nothing is elicited whether there is any enmity between these accused and PW-1 to 3 to incriminate in this case. But, this proceeding came to be initiated at suomoto at their own instant. Even, according to the case of th