Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 1474
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
RAGHU R. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11946 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri Lohith Kumar N.S.
For the Respondents: Sri K. Nageshwarappa
Continuation of trial deemed unnecessary due to lack of evidence and similarity of charges resulting in co-accused acquittals.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 399 and 402 - Quashing of Proceedings - Petitioner, accused in a split case from main charge, challenges ongoing proceedings asserting acquittal of co-accused - Court emphasizes no evidence against petitioner necessitating quashing - Judicial time would be wasted in continuation with outcome likely to mirror co-accused's acquittal. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent powers of high court - Court outlines rationale for discontinuation when evidence against accused parallels that of acquitted co-accused - Continuation deemed futile as acquittal on similar charges rendered - Noting prior judgments supports petitioner's claim for relief under similar factual matrix and conclusions drawn from evidence. (Paras 12-18)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner involved in preparatory acts of dacoity, previously tried with co-accused who were acquitted due to lack of evidence, leading to separate charges against him - Court examined the collective role and commonality of allegations resulting in a review of proceedings against him.
Findings of Court:
Prosecution's failure to substantiate claims against co-accused applies to the petitioner establishing that trial would yield no further justice and only prolong existing judicial proceedings without merit.
Issues: Determining whether the acquittal of co-accused impacts the trial of the petitioner under common allegations and section applicability.
Ratio Decidendi: Court determines that continuation of trial against the petitioner would be redundant as acquittals stem from shared factual circumstances suggesting no further trial capacity to provide additional justice.
Result: Criminal petition is allowed; proceedings against the petitioner quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to trial continuation based on co-accused acquittals. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 2. insufficient evidence leads to discussion on acquittal relevance. (Para 3 , 4) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner – accused No.3 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.29538/2017, pending before the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for he offences under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC , which is a split up case from the main C.C.No.3706/2017, registered for the aforesaid offences.
2. Heard Sri Lohith Kumar N.S., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioner – accused No.3 along with several others get embroiled in a crime in Crime No.693/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC , which are ‘making preparation for dacoity’ and ‘assembling for dacoity’. The police after investigation, file a charge sheet in C.C.No.3706/2017 and the matter gets committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.1631/2017. The concerned Court after a detailed trial, acquits accused Nos.5 and 6 of the crime and splits the charge against the present petitioner, accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 7 as they were not available for trial at the relevant point in time. The continuation of the proceedings as what is driven to the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the concerned Court has acquitted accused Nos.5 and 6 by its judgment dated 05.12.2022. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the reasons rendered by the concerned Court is applicable to the petitioner as well. Therefore, the proceedings must be obliterated.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader would however, refute the submissions, contending that the judgment of acquittal of accused Nos.5 and 6 would not be applicable to the facts of the case and therefore, the petitioner must be directed to face the trial and come out clean, as the offences punishable are under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC , which is for collective act, as it is commission of dacoity or preparation for commission of dacoity.
6. The concerned Court in S.C.No.1631/2017 has rendered cogent reasons on the score that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted Nos.5 and 6. In the light of the said acquittal, the continuation of the impugned proceedings against this petitioner would eventually end in an acquittal, as continuation of the proceedings is nothing but waste of precious judicial time. However, the accused person escaping trial should not show any mercy, but, continuation of the proceedings would ultimately end up in acquittal of the petitioner.
7. In that light, to save precious judicial time, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment of this Court dated 02.09.2022 passed in Crl.P.No.7720/2022, which reads as follows:
“4. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated 01.12.2021, acquits accused Nos.1 to 11, 14, 16 to 18 and 21 in S.C.No.103/2018. At the relevant point in time, when the trial was on, the petitioner was not available for trial, as he was allegedly absconding and a split charge sheet was issued against the petitioner in S.C.No.87/2019 in terms of an order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 10.06.2019. The continuation of proceedings in S.C.No.87/2019 is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. Learned counsel, Sri. Lethif B., appearing for the petitioner would contend that the allegations are the ones punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 427, 395, 149 of the IPC . The said allegation is necessarily to be common against all the accused and it is infact common against all the accused. The acquittal order passed by the concerned Court is on the basis of the compla
