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. 966 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

ABOOBAKKAR SIDDIQUE, S/O. HAMMABBA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A:MADANI NAGAR, KUTTHARU, MUNNUR, BANTWAL, D.K.DISTRICT – 575 017.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ULLAL POLICE STATION, Digitally D.K.DISTRICT, signed by SANJEEVINI J REPRESENTED BY SPP, KARISHETTY HIGH COURT BUILDING, Location:

High Court of BENGALURU – 560 001.

Karnataka

2. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O HAMABBA BAWA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT: SANTOSH NAGAR, PERMANOOR, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT – 575 017.

…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 ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CC NO.28/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL.CJM, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 448, 324 R/W 149 OF IPC OF ULLAL POLICE STATION WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.28/2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 448, 324 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri.Lethif B, 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 along with others gets embroiled in Crime No.201/2007 for the aforesaid offences. The respondent- police filed a charge sheet after investigation. The petitioner at the relevant point in time was not available for trial. Accused Nos.1 and 2 who were available for trial, come to be acquitted by an order of the concerned Court dated 16.08.2012 in C.C.No.45/2008. The petitioner is now wanting to be tried for an eventual acquittal. Therefore, to save the precious judicial time, I deem it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS and obliterate the crime against the petitioner.

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 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