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. 542 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI. SURESH. V S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O NO. 281, 4TH CROSS, K.S. GARDEN, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU- 560 027 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA signed by SANJEEVINI J REPRESENTED BY KARISHETTY SHO SAMPANGI RAMANAGAR Location: High Court of POLICE STATION, Karnataka BENGALURU DISTRICT- 560 027.

AND ALSO REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU- 560 001.

OFFICE OF THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

2. SRI. ANANTHA, S/O LATE A.ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, SREE KANTEERAVA STADIUM, SAMPANGI RAMNAGAR, BENGALURU- 560 027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C. NO. 18/2024 (ARISING OUT OF C.C. NO. 20066/2007 AND CRIME NO. 53/2007), PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-57), BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307 AND 279 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

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 - accused No.2 is before this Court calling in question the continuance of proceedings in S.C.No.18/2024 notwithstanding the other co-accused getting acquitted in C.C.No.20066/2007.

2. Heard Sri. Anand K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

3. The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.53/2007, which is tried by the concerned Court later as S.C.No.760/2007. The petitioner-accused No.2 at the relevant point in time was not available for trial, the other accused who are available for trial were tried and acquitted by an order of the concerned Court dated 04.06.2008. The petitioner after 16 years is found somewhere and is now being hunted down for the purpose of continuance of trial . Though accused who would not co-operate with the trial or escape trial should not be shown indulgence. Permitting further trial against the petitioner would only end up in acquittal as the co-accused on the same reasons have been acquitted. The reason so rendered would become applicable to the petitioner as well only to save precious judicial time. I deem it appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of the BNSS and obliterate the proceedings 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. The