High Court dismisses petition to quash proceedings due to accused's absconding during trial

Abdul Jabbar @ Shafi S/O R.A. Sardar Versus The State of Karnataka by Sampangiram Nagara Police Bangalore, M/s. Stanley Seating

Abdul Jabbar @ Shafi S/O R.A. Sardar Versus The State of Karnataka by Sampangiram Nagara Police Bangalore, M/s. Stanley Seating - TMI Issues: Accused absconding during trial, petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, abuse of process of Court, application for discharge, dismissal of petition.

Accused Absconding During Trial:
The petitioner, accused No.2 in the case, along with another individual, was charge-sheeted for offenses under Sections 381 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Despite efforts, the petitioner's presence could not be secured during the trial, leading to the case against the petitioner being split up. The trial proceeded for accused No.1, resulting in acquittal due to lack of witness support. Despite various steps taken, including issuance of NBWs and proclamations under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner remained absconding.

Petition Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to Quash Proceedings:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against him, arguing that since the main accused had been acquitted, continuing the trial against him would serve no useful purpose. However, the Court noted that the petitioner's refusal to surrender before the Magistrate who issued the proclamation was not justifiable. The Court emphasized that allowing individuals who do not respect the Court's process to escape consequences would amount to an abuse of the Court's process.

Abuse of Process of Court and Application for Discharge:
The Court highlighted that it would not be appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, who continuously absconded and did not respond even after proclamations were issued. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner should surrender before the Magistrate and file an application for discharge based on the acquittal of the main accused. The Court clarified that the decision relied upon by the petitioner, which pertained to a different scenario, was not applicable in this case due to the petitioner's prolonged absconding.

Dismissal of Petition and Reserving Liberty to Surrender:
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, reserving liberty for the petitioner to surrender before the Magistrate and file an application for discharge based on the circumstances. The judgment also disposed of the stay application, as the petition was dismissed, and no longer required consideration.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Karnataka High Court encapsulates the issues of the accused absconding during trial, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., considerations of abuse of process of Court, the option of filing an application for discharge, and the ultimate dismissal of the petition with liberty reserved for the petitioner to surrender before the Magistrate.