1 CRL.P.No.101276 /2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.101276 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. KIRAN GOUDA S/O PANCHANGOUDA
SON OF ERAPPA, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC. FARMER
2. VARUN GOUDA S/O PANCHANGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
3. PANCHAN GOWDA S/O HANUMAN GOUDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE THE RESIDENTS OF
RAGIMASALVADA VILLAGE,
HARAPANHALLI TALUK,
DIST BALLARI-583131.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. R. HIREMATHAD &
SRI.PRAKASH R. BADIGER, ADVOCATES)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
HALVAGILU POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
DHARWAD-581001
2. SHREE HOLEYAPPA S/O SANNA DURAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC. FARMER,
2 CRL.P.No.101276 /2022
RESIDENT OF RAGIMASALVAD VILLAGE,
HARAPANHALLI TALUK,
DISTRICT BALLARI-583131.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. S. B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1, 2 AND 9 IN HALAVAGILU P.S.
CRIME NO.0103/2021 OF SPL.C.NO.01037/2021 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BALLARI, AT BALLARI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S
323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT 1989, AND FOR PASSING OF SUCH OTHER RELIEF.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
03.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners, who are arraigned as accused No.1, 2 and 9 have filed this petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings in Crime No.103/2021 (Special Case No.1037/2021) pending on the file of the I- Additional District Judge, Ballari for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and 3 CRL.P.No.101276 /2022 under sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST Act").
2. It is the case of the petitioners that on 12.09.2021 in between 5 to 6.30 pm, a quarrel took place between two groups regarding immersion of Ganesh. In the said incident, petitioners sustained injuries. However, on 15.09.2021 based on the complaint filed by the opponent party i.e. respondent No.2, respondent No.1- police have registered a case in Crime No.103/2021 against the petitioners and twelve other persons for the offence punishable under sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and under sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act. After the advise of the villagers, accused No.8 filed complaint against respondent No.2 and twelve others for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 341, 504, 323, 324 read with 149 of IPC and the same is registered in Crime No.104/2021. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners and twelve others and it is 4 CRL.P.No.101276 /2022 numbered as Special Case No.1037/2021 and it is pending before the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari. However the complaint filed against respondent No.2 and others is investigated by other police and charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.1/2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Harapanahalli.
3. Respondent No.1 has appeared through the learned HCGP. After due service of notice, respondent No.2 appeared through Sri. S. B. Doddagoudar, learned counsel.
4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing the petitioners submitted that unnecessarily the petitioners who are facing trial are humiliated. They have not committed any offences as alleged. The allegations made against the petitioners does not attract the provisions of Section 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and under sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act. Since the incident in respect of which both complaints were filed is one and the same, the investigation should have been conducted 5 CRL.P.No.101276 /2022 by same investigating officer and trial is also required to be conducted before the same Court. However, two separate public prosecutors are required to conduct trail and case is required to be decided by one after the other, without being influenced by the evidence led in the other case. In the circumstances, the petitioners are entitled for quashing of the proceedings and prays to allow the petition.
5. On the other hand, learned HCGP and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that already charge sheet is filed in both the cases and since the case filed against the petitioners attracts provisions of SC/ST Act, necessarily the trial is required to be conducted before the Special Court. However the case in C.C.No.1/2022 may also be ordered to be transferred to the Special Court so that the same Court may hold trial and dispose of the matter. Having regard to the fact that it is case and counter case, two separate public prosecutors would conduct trial. They would further submit that even though the investigation is not conducted by the same 6 CRL.P.No.101276 /2022 investigating officer, in view of the decision of Full Bench of this Court in State of Karnataka by Circle Inspector of Police Vs. Hosakeri Ningappa and another1 (Hosakeri Ningappa's case) no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners warranting quashing of the proceedings and prays to dismiss the petition.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. It is an undisputed fact t hat in respect of the same incident, two complaints came to be filed i.e. one against the petitioners & others and another against the complainant herein i.e. respondent No.2 and others. While the compliant filed against the petitioners involve offences punishable under the provisions of SC/ST Act, it was investigated by the Dy.S.P. and charge sheet came to be filed before the Special Court. On the other hand, since the offences alleged against respondent No.2 and others are coming only under IPC, it is investigated by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet is filed before the 1 ILR 2012 KAR 509 7 CRL.P.No.101276 /2022 Court of Senior Civil Judge. It is true that as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nathilal and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others2, both the cases ought to have been investigated by the same investigating officer and charge sheet should have been filed before the same Court and same Court is required to decide them. Already investigation in both the cases is completed and therefore, there is no question of once again investigating the same by Dy.S.P. who has filed charge sheet against the petitioners.
8. In fact, in the decision reported in ILR 2012 Karnataka 509, in Hosakeri Ningappa's Case, the Full Bench of this Court has held that until and unless it is established that the non-compliance of any of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has caused prejudice to the accused persons, the investigation and trial is not vitiated. Therefore, the fact that the counter case is investigated by the other investigating officer and not by the Dy.S.P., who has conducted 2 1990 Supp SCC 145 8 CRL.P.No.101276 /2022 investigation in the present case, is not a ground for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
9. Since in both the cases, the Trial is not yet commenced, it would be appropriate if the case in Crime No.104/2021, which is registered against respondent No.2 and others, pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Harapanahalli is transferred to the Court of Special Judge, with a direction to try both the cases as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, these two cases are to be conducted by two public prosecutors. After closure of evidence in one case, the evidence should be commenced in the other case and judgment should be pronounced simultaneously as per the directions given in Hosakeri Ningappa's case. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed.9 CRL.P.No.101276 /2022
However, C.C.No.1/2022 pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, is transferred to the Court of I-Additional District and Sessions Judge Ballari, at Ballari with a direction that these two cases are to be conducted by two public prosecutors and after closure of evidence in one case, the evidence should be commenced in the other case and judgment should be pronounced simultaneously as per the directions given in Hosakeri Ningappa's case.
In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN