Proceedings against a split-up accused may be quashed if co-accused facing identical charges and based on the same evidence are acquitted, as continuing such trial would be an exercise in futility.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGESHECT S.C NO.477/2023 (SPLIT-UP FROM SC-949/2019) (CR.657/2015) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 341, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AND THE SAME IS PENDING FILE OF THE BEFORE XIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND DIST SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH.22).

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.6 in SC.No.477/2023 stands at the doors of this Court calling in question its continuance, which is split up from SC.No.949/2019.

Heard Sri. Lalith Kumar R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime in Crime No.657/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against all the accused. The petitioner at the relevant point in time was not available for trial. Therefore, the charge was split against the petitioner and the concerned Court tried the accused, who were available for trial and acquits accused Nos.3 and 8 in terms of its judgment dated 28.01.2026. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would indicate that the offences alleged against this petitioner is identical to what was alleged against accused Nos.3 and 8.

The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor would now submit that the acquittal order is only on 28.01.2026. Therefore, liberty must be reserved to the State to revive these proceedings in the event, the acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 8 gets reversed.

It is needless to observe that the said liberty is always available to the State and these proceedings would automatically get reversed in the event the acquittal of accused Nos.3 and 6 get reversed.

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 the prosecution in the earlier case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, the proceeding is quashed.”

13. Yet, in another ruling The State of Karnataka vs. K.C. Narasegowda reported in ILR 2005 Kar.