Mhammad Ali vs The State of Karnataka

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—This petition is filed seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No. 1188/2011 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K. District.

The records disclose that a girl by name Fathima lodged a complaint against the accused persons including these petitioners for the offence punishable u/s 341, 354, 506, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The brief facts of the case is that on 7.2.2008 during night hours, while the complainant returning from Masjid, the accused persons in four motorcycles chased the jeep, intercepted the jeep in which the complainant and others were travelling and they dragged the complainant out of the jeep and prevented her from going any where and also attempted to outrage her modesty. By that time, on seeing some other vehicle coming from the opposite direction, the accused persons ran away from the spot On the basis of the complaint, the Police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet before the Court.

The present petitioners are arrayed as A1, A2 and A5. These accused persons remained absent before the Trial Court. Therefore, a split up charge sheet has been filed against them. The remaining accused persons i.e., A3, A4, A6 and A7 were tried by the Trial Court and acquitted the said accused persons vide judgment dated 23.4.2011 in CC No. 1209/2008. However, the criminal case registered against these petitioners in CC No. 1188/2011 is still pending.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when other accused persons have already been acquitted and when there are no separate independent allegations are made against these petitioners when compared with the allegations made against other accused persons who are acquitted. The allegations are inseparable in nature, when the Police have specifically invoked Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, when some of the accused persons who stand on the same footing as that of the petitioner are already acquitted, the same benefit has to be extended so far as these petitioners are concerned. Therefore, the proceedings pending before the Trial Court so far as it relates to these petitioners deserves to be quashed.

I have heard the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader.

The judgment of the Trial Court discloses that the complainant-Fathima, who was examined before the Trial Court as PW1, has turned totally hostile to the prosecution. The perusal of the deposition of the complainant reveals that, in the first sentence itself she has said that she knew all the accused persons. They have compromised the matter and she has further deposed that at no point of time, the accused persons have committed any offence against her. Therefore, the witness was treated hostile and during the course of cross examination also, the whole story of the prosecution was suggested to the witness, but she has denied the same. Perhaps, that may be the reason the Trial Court examining only the complainant acquitted the accused persons. The Trial Court has framed charges not only against the accused who were tried but also against all the accused persons and ultimately held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the accused persons.

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the State did not brought to my notice whether any appeal has been preferred against the order of the Trial Court or not. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the judgment of the Trial Court attained finality.

Looking to the above said factual aspects, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations made against all the accused persons are one and the same and they cannot be bifurcated and no independent separate allegations are made so far as these petitioners are concerned in order to direct the Trial Court to hold a trial once again against these petitioners.

Even if the trial is conducted against these petitioners, no useful purpose would be served except wasting the judicial time of the Court.

It is worth to note a decision of this High Court reported in 2001(3) KLJ 551 in the case of Mohammed Ilias Vs. State of Karnataka, wherein this Court has held that-

"Absconding among accused-Arrest of and launching of proceedings separately against-His arrest after acquittal of co-accused on ground of insufficiency of evidence, as prosecution witnesses turned hostile-Since evidence against all accused persons is common, indivisible and inseparable, absconder who has been brought to trial after acquittal of co-accused, cannot also be convicted on basis of same evidence-Proceedings are liable to be quashed when there is no possibility of conviction against accused."

The above said ruling is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present. In the circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to refuse the relief sought for in the petition. Hence, I pass the following Order:

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in CC No. 1188/2011 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K. is hereby quashed.