1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.8698 /2017
BETWEEN
A.L.ALTHAF @ PAPUL @ FARHAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O ABDUL LATHEEF
R/A BANGALA BEEDI
BEHIND MOHAN PETROL BUNK
VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT-571218
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASANNA D P, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIRAJPET RURAL POLICE STATION
KODAGU DISTRICT-571218
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560001 … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.87/2016 ON THE
III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KODAGU AT MADIKERI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
366(A),376,506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner who was arrayed as A1 in SC
No.20/2013 on the file of the III Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, has approached this
court for quashing of the proceedings registered against
him on the basis of split up charge sheet, in SC
No.87/2016 on the file of the III Addl. District and
Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under
Sections 366(A), 376, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
2. The records disclose that the petitioner who was
arrayed as Accused No.1 in SC NO.20/2013, was
absconding. Therefore, he was split up from the said
case and other accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 were tried by
the learned Sessions Judge and rendered a judgment of
acquittal, so far as those accused persons are
concerned, vide Judgment dtd:10.01.2017. Against
which no appeal proffered by the State.
3. Now, the petitioner herein claims that, the
allegations made against A1 to A6 in the said case are
3
one and the same and there is no distinction with
regard to the factual aspects compared to all the other
accused persons who are already acquitted. Therefore,
on the ground of parity, this petitioner seeks for
extension of the acquittal Judgment rendered by the
Sessions Court, consequently, quashing the proceedings
in SC No.87/2016.
4. The brief factual matrix which emanate from the
record are that on 25.9.2010, the accused No.1 has
persuaded the victim girl, who was examined as PW1
before the Trial Court. It is further alleged that, he took
her to various places and have had sexual intercourse
with her and not only he had forcible intercourse with
her but also allowed other friends of A1 who are arrayed
as A2 to A6 to enjoy sex with her. Therefore, the
complaint came to be lodged in that context. Therefore,
it is clear from the allegations that all the accused
persons have, against her will and consent committed
rape on PW-1. On these allegations, the police have
investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet.
During the course of trial of all other acquitted accused
4
persons, the prosecution examined as many as 18
witnesses and got marked 27 documents as Exhibits P1
to P27 and one Material object MO1. The learned
Sessions Judge, after evaluating the oral and
documentary evidence on record has come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to
establish the alleged offences against the accused, for
the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 376,
343, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. The learned Sessions Judge mainly relied upon
the evidence of the Prosecutrix, who turned volte face
to the prosecution and she never stated any incident
being happened as stated in Ex.P1 which is the first
information report lodged by the victim. It is stated by
her, that she had been to her friends house i.e., CW8-
Mamatha and she stayed in her house and thereafter,
she came back to her house after four days, without
informing her parents, as she has failed in SSLC
examination. When she came back, she came to know
that, her father has already lodged a missing complaint
before police and in fact her father took her to the Police
5
Station and taken signatures of her on various
documents but she did not know the contents of those
documents and she specifically said that, she never
made any allegation against any person much less
against the accused person herein. On the main basis
of such evidence before the court, the Trial Court has
arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has not
established the guilt of the accused. Consequently,
acquitted A2, A3, A5 and A6.
6. Considering the above said factual aspects of
evidence, the prosecution has not led any specific
evidence against A1. Therefore, the allegation and
evidence already led by the prosecution are indivisible
and inseparable so far as A1 is concerned compared to
the other accused persons who are already acquitted.
Therefore, I am of the opinion, the continuation of the
proceedings in SC No.87/2016 against this petitioner for
the same offences will be a futile exercise and it would
be a waste of judicial time. Therefore, in my opinion,
the proceeding deserves to be quashed.
6
7. In this regard, it is worth to mention here an
unreported decision of this court in SAIBANNA VS.
STATE OF KARNATAKA IN CRIMINAL PETITION
NO.200008/2015 DATED 23.01.2015 by referring
the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in ILR 2015 KAR
Page 970 [HYDER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA],
AIR 2005 SCC 268 [CBI VS. AKHILESH SINGH] and
2002(1) KCCR 1 [ MUNEER AHMED QURESHI,
MUNEER @ GAUN MUNEER VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA BY KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT POLICE, in
order to ascertain whether this court can quash the
proceedings against the co-accused, when the other
accused have already been acquitted. In this regard, in
a decision reported in Criminal Petition No.4796/2017
dated 05.07.2017, this Court has extensively relied
upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and this Court, particularly in the decisions reported in
(2001) 3 Kant.L.J. 551 [MOHAMMED ILIAS Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA] and ILR 2005 KAR. 1822
[THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. K.C.
NARASEGOWDA]. Therefore, before adverting to the
7
factual aspects of this case, it is worth to refer the
decision in the case of Akhilesh Singh (supra), wherein,
it was held that:
“Quashing of charge and discharge of the
accused when an accused who alleged to
have hatched conspiracy and who had motive
to kill the deceased were already
discharged, that matter had attained finality,
the discharge of co-accused by High Court by
holding that no purpose would be served in
further proceeding with case against co-
accused held proper.”
8. In Muneer Ahmed Qureshi’s case (supra), this
Court has held that: –
“Entire case of the prosecution as
against six accused is practically
inseparable and individual one and
especially when the Judgment of acquittal is
passed, when P.W.1 denies the entire
incident or the role of the accused. This
reasoning of acquittal would also definitely
enure to the petitioner. Even if the
petitioner is tried there cannot be any other
material other than what is already
produced and considered by Trial Court. In
8
such circumstances it will be an exercise in
futility to make the petitioner to undergo the
ordeal of crime, and then to be acquitted.
Holding that the proceeding against the
accused person who was absconding and
subsequently against whom a split up
charge sheet was filed was quashed.”
In view of the above said decisions also, the Apex Court
and this Court have already taken a view that once the
allegations made in the charge sheet and also the
evidence considered by the Trial Court are one and the
same against all the accused persons and if some of the
accused persons have already been acquitted, the same
benefit has to be extended to the other accused persons
who are split up from the case. In view of the above
said facts and circumstances I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. Consequently, The
Sessions Case No.87/2016 on the file of the III Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri for the
offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376, 506
9
read with Section 34 of IPC and all further proceedings
therein are hereby quashed so far as this petitioner is
concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*
