ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.1561/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri. Lohith Kumar N.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Harish Ganapathi, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

3. Five accused get embroiled in a crime for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC. The said crime comes to be registered on 19.08.2014. The police after investigation file a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences also and commits the matter to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions in S.C.No.17/2015 by its order acquits three accused 1, 3 and 4. Split charge was laid against two accused on account of them being absent during the conduct of trial. A separate split charge sheet was issued against accused No.5, which also ends in his acquittal, by an order of the concerned court dated 15.12.2021, who remains in the array of accused is the petitioner, who is accused No.4 on account of him being absent during trial, a split charge sheet is again laid in S.C.No.1561/2021. Continuance of proceedings in S.C.No.1561/2021 is what has driven the petitioner to this court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sing the same swan song as every other accused sings that no notice was served upon him throughout the trial. Be that as it may.

5. Permitting the petitioner to undergo trial at this stage the only be waste of judicial time, as the offence is one of dacoity under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and if all of them have together indulged in such offence and four accused have been acquitted, the reason so rendered for such acquittal would become squarely applicable to the petitioner as well. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to close the proceedings against this petitioner as well, notwithstanding the fact he has escaped trial.

6. 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 reported in 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 reported in (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 reported in ILR 2005 Kar. 1822 this Court has held to th