Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Six Men’s Alleged Festival Harassment Case Despite Juvenile Co-Accused’s Acquittal, Sets 3-Month Disposal Deadline

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1–4, 7 and 8, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 506/2018, arising from Crime No. 19/2018, for alleged offences under Sections 143, 354, 504 and 509 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

The complaint alleged that, during the Rashtrakuta Utsava on 5 March 2018, the accused abused and quarrelled with the complainant, one attempted to touch her with intent to outrage her modesty, and the accused later abused her and pulled the shirt of an accompanying officer.

The petitioners relied on the Juvenile Justice Board’s acquittal of two co-accused who were children in conflict with law (CCLs), seeking the same benefit.

The State opposed the petition, and the complainant, despite service, did not appear.

The petition invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides for the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings.

The alleged offences were under Sections 143, 354, 504 and 509 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

The Court did not cite a specific precedent laying down a general rule on the effect of a CCL’s acquittal on adult co-accused; it distinguished the Coordinate Bench decisions cited by the petitioners on their facts, including the evidentiary position in those cases.

The Court held that the CCLs’ acquittal did not, by itself, entitle the petitioners to have their proceedings quashed.

It distinguished the petitioners’ cited decisions, observing that in those matters the material witnesses had turned hostile, whereas it considered that the complainant and material witnesses in the present case had supported the prosecution.

The Court also noted that charges had been framed and the case was posted for prosecution evidence, and concluded that continuing the trial did not amount to an abuse of process.

The judgment’s account of the evidentiary position is not entirely consistent: paragraph 7 records the State’s submission that witnesses in the juvenile case had turned hostile, while paragraph 12 states that the complainant and material witnesses in the present case had supported the prosecution.

It directed the trial court to expedite the matter and dispose of it within three months from receipt of the order. Any pending interim application was also disposed of.