IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15462 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

R.SURESH @ TAVAKA, S/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.415, RAJARAJESWARINAGAR, D.M. PUBLIC SCHOOL, LAGGERE, BENGALURU, PIN- 560 058.

(AS PER AADHAR CARD)

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHU N.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, KARISHETTY BY RAJAGOPALNAGARA POLICE STATION, Location:

High Court of BENGALURU, Karnataka REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 01.

2. SRI. V.J.MITHUN SHILPI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PSI, RAJAGOPAL NAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA, PIN – 560 058.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO. 12539/2018 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. C.M.M AT BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 399, 402 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner - accused No.7, is before this Court challenging the continuance of proceeding in C.C.No.12539/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri. Raghu N.R, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent-State and have perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime along with other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC. The petitioner at relevant point in time was not available for trial. The other accused have been tried and the concerned Court by its order dated 17.12.2024 acquits the other accused on the score that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Since the offence is of commission of dacoity under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC, the reason so rendered by the concerned Court would become applicable to the petitioner as well.

4. 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 while considering an 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