Proceedings against a similarly placed co-accused were quashed on parity.

The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 67 in C.C. No. 151/2023, sought to quash proceedings arising from Crime No. 80/2021, registered by Alur Police Station.

The charge sheet alleged offences under Sections 188 and 269 of the IPC, Sections 27(b) and 20B of the NDPS Act, and Section 51(b) of the Disaster Management Act.

The petitioner relied on a coordinate Bench’s order in Kevin Chiriyar v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P. No. 3851/2024, which had quashed proceedings in the same case against accused No. 71.

The High Court considered the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 528 BNSS.

1. Whether the petitioner, accused No. 67 in the same case, was entitled to quashing of proceedings on the ground of parity with accused No. 71.

2. Whether the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 151/2023 should be quashed.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) to consider quashing the criminal proceedings.

It applied the doctrine of parity, relying on the coordinate Bench’s decision in Kevin Chiriyar, which quashed proceedings against accused No. 71 after finding procedural defects concerning the complaint required for an offence under Section 188 IPC, the asserted requirements for action under the Karnataka Excise Act, the Disaster Management Act and the NDPS Act, and the seizure and registration of the case.

The present order did not independently examine those statutory requirements; it relied on the prior decision and the petitioner’s position in the same case.

The Court noted that the proceedings against accused No. 71 in C.C. No. 151/2023 had already been quashed by a coordinate Bench.

Treating the petitioner’s status as accused No. 67 in that same case as sufficient for parity, the Court held that the proceedings against him also deserved to be quashed.

It did not separately assess the evidence or statutory allegations against the petitioner.