Acquittal of co-accused entitled a petitioner to quash charges against himself under the doctrine of parity, affirming no separate evidence exists against him.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.8015/2013 arising out of Crime No.217/2013 registered by respondent No.1 – Police, pending on the file of the II ACJM, Bengaluru Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B , 302 r/w. Section 149 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 petitioner – Uday Kumar G. was arraigned as accused No.4 in S.C.No.76/2014 along with seven others, who were arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 8 in the charge sheet filed pursuant to FIR in Crime No.217/2013. Thereafter, case against the petitioner- accused No.4 was split-up and split-up charge sheet was filed against him in C.C.No.8015/2013. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections 120-B , 302 r/w. Section 149 of IPC .

4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the judgment dated 09.07.2014 passed in S.C.No.76/2014, in order to point out that in view of the acquittal of accused Nos.1, 2, 5 and 7 and 3 by the Sessions Judge, the present petitioner who is accused No.2 in S.C.No.76/2014, prior to same being split up in C.C.No.8015/2013, 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 re