ULLALA KHASIM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petition coming on for admission, is considered for final disposal.

(2.) THE petitioners are said to be the accused along with several others. It is alleged that on 6.10.2006 at about 2.45 p.m. in Subhash Nagar, Ullal village, Mangalore Taluk, the accused had, with a common object formed an unlawful assembly and resorted to rioting armed with soda bottles and hockey sticks used as deadly weapons and entered into Sindoori Fancy Shop of one Meenakshi situated at Shop No.15/85(3) and other shops belonging to other complainants and resorted to commit mischief by setting fire to articles, causing loss as a result thereof. On the basis of the said complaint, the police after investigation had charge -sheeted several accused. Insofar as the present petitioners were concerned, since they were said to be absconding, the case was split up and the trial had gone on in respect of all accused persons who had been taken into custody and a full -fledged trial having been conducted against those accused, they have been acquitted. The evidence tendered by the prosecution in that case did not support the case of the prosecution. That was by a judgment dated 16.08.2010 in Criminal Case No.103/2007. Thereafter, the present petitioners having been apprehended, cognizance having been taken, proceedings having been initiated against the present petitioners, they have appeared before the Magistrate's court and obtained bail. It is after obtaining bail, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) THOUGH the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would seek to contend that it cannot be presumed that the evidence to be tendered at the trial would be the same in respect of the present petitioners are concerned, having regard to the allegations in the complaint, it cannot be said that it would be any different. Especially in the circumstance that PWs 2 to 4 in the earlier trial, had turned hostile and in the further circumstance that PW -1 has admitted in her evidence that the mishap had occurred when she had gone out for lunch and by the time she returned, everybody had gone away. Hence, going by the circumstances of the case, the further proceedings before the court below are certainly an exercise in futility and it would save the State's expense if the proceedings are quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.320/2012 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, are quashed.