SRI. T. N. JAYASHANKARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In view of the above facts and circumstances, continuation of multiple proceedings against the petitioner for the same set of facts and allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause grave prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, I proceed to…
Judgment
A careful perusal of the averments made in all the FIRs reveals that the accused persons collectively conspired with one another, acting pursuant to a common design and with a common intention, to cheat the depositors. In furtherance of this conspiracy, each accused is alleged to have played a distinct but integral role, contributing towards the accomplishment of the unified and overarching objective of the conspiracy. It is not the case of the prosecution that different accused persons joined the conspiracy at different points of time; rather, the allegations suggest that all the accused were part of a continuous and ongoing conspiracy from the outset, and the offences alleged were committed in furtherance of this original conspiracy without any interruption or fresh joining by new conspirators at different stages.
In support, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which under: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16107 WP No. 9124 of 2025 i. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 348; ii. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported (2013) 6 SCC 348; iii. Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 12 SCC
It is settled law that where multiple FIRs or charge sheets relate to the same offence or form part of the same transaction or conspiracy, subsequent FIRs or charge sheets can only be treated as supplementary to the original FIR. Therefore, in the present case, the charge sheets laid in the various crime numbers, arising from the same transaction and same set of allegations, are liable to be treated as supplementary charge sheets.
Operative part
In view of the above facts and circumstances, continuation of multiple proceedings against the petitioner for the same set of facts and allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause grave prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16107 WP No. 9124 of 2025 ii. The 32nd Addl. City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge and Special Judge CBI, Bangalore is hereby directed to treat the charge sheets filed in SPL C.NO. 1092/2019, SPL C NO.1097/2019, SPL.C NO.1180/2019, SPL.C NO.1221/2019, SPL.C NO.1173/2019, SPL.C NO.1161/2019, SPL.C NO.1141/2019, SPL.C NO.1179/2019, SPL.C NO.1135/2019, SPL.C NO.1172/2019, SPL.C NO.1184/2019, SPL.C NO.1137/2019, SPL.C NO.1162/2019, SPL.C NO.1093/2019, SPL.C NO.546/2019, SPL.C NO.1223/2019, SPL.C NO.834/2018, SPL.C NO.1099/2019, SPL.C NO.1100/2019, SPL.C NO.1094/2019, SPL.C NO.1222/2019, SPL.C NO.1091/2019, SPL.C NO.1096/2019, SPL.C NO.1095/2019, SPL.C NO. 1098/2019, SPL.C NO. 547/2019, SPL.C NO.1138/2019, SPL.C NO.1176/2019 AND SPL.C NO. additional charge Spl.C.C.No.1090/2019. iii. The impugned proceedings in SPL C.NO. 1092/2019, SPL C NO.1097/2019, SPL.C NO.1180/2019, SPL.C NO.1221/2019, SPL.C NO.1173/2019, SPL.C NO.1161/2019, SPL.C NO.1141/2019, SPL.C NO.1179/2019, SPL.C NO.1135/2019, SPL.C NO.1172/2019, SPL.C NO.1184/2019, SPL.C NO.1137/2019, SPL.C NO.1162/2019, SPL.C NO.1093/2019, SPL.C NO.546/2019, SPL.C NO.1223/2019, SPL.C NO.834/2018, SPL.C NO.1099/2019, SPL.C NO.1100/2019, SPL.C NO.1094/2019, SPL.C NO.1222/2019, SPL.C NO.1091/2019, SPL.C NO.1096/2019, SPL.C NO.1095/2019, SPL.C NO. 1098/2019, SPL.C NO. 547/2019, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16107 WP No. 9124 of 2025 SPL.C NO.1138/2019, SPL.C NO.1176/2019 AND SPL.C NO. 1181/2019 pending on the file of 32nd Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, CBI, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 138
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Financial Establishments Act, 2004.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 17 Apr 2025. The bench was HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.