Proceedings against an absconding accused may be quashed when co-accused are acquitted on identical evidence.

The petitioner was charged as accused No. 15 in a case arising from an alleged mob attack on shops and a hotel. As he was unavailable for trial, proceedings against him were split and registered as S.C. No. 60/2006.

The other accused were tried and acquitted under Section 235(1) CrPC. The trial court found that the principal witnesses had turned hostile, had not identified the accused, and had provided no evidence establishing their involvement in the incident.

The petitioner sought quashing of the pending proceedings, contending that the evidence against him was the same as that considered in the trial of the acquitted co-accused.

Whether proceedings against the petitioner could be quashed where the co-accused had been acquitted on the same evidence and no independent or specific material implicated him.

Whether the petitioner’s absence from the earlier trial justified requiring him to undergo a separate trial despite the acquittal of the co-accused.

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (the petition also referred to Section 528 of the BNSS) to quash proceedings where the evidence against the petitioner was identical to that considered in the completed trial of the co-accused, the co-accused had been acquitted, and no independent or separate material supported proceeding against the petitioner.

The Court relied on Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh, AIR 2005 SCC 268, and the Karnataka decisions in Mohammed Ilias v. State of Karnataka, (2001) 3 Kant LJ 551, and State of Karnataka v. K.C. Narasegowda, ILR 2005 Kar 1822, as discussed in the cited coordinate Bench decision.

It also referred to Deepak Rajak v. State of West Bengal, (2007) 15 SCC 305, in support of extending the benefit of acquittal to a co-accused in appropriate circumstances involving the same offence and factual allegations.

The acquittal of the co-accused rested on the absence of reliable evidence identifying them or establishing their participation; the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, and the trial court found no evidence linking the accused to the alleged offences.

The High Court found that the petitioner faced the same allegations and that the prosecution had placed no independent or specific material against him.

In those circumstances, a separate trial would be an exercise in futility, and the petitioner could not be subjected to a different outcome on the same evidentiary record merely because his case had been split up.