Karnataka High Court
Sri T Siddappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
CRL.P No. 478 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 478 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. T .SIDDAPPA,
S/O. T. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MAIN ROAD, NEAR NEW BAVIKERE,
KALMANE VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577 214.
2. SRI. NAGARAJ,
S/O. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SRI. KARIBASAPPA R
S/O RANGAPPA
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY
Location: High 4. RAGHAVENDRA N
Court of S/O NAGARAJ T
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
5. PRAJWAL.R.K,
S/O. KARIBASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
ALL THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDENTS OF S.S ROAD,
KALMANE VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
CRL.P No. 478 of 2026
HC-KAR
SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577 214.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RURAL POLICE, SHIKARIPURA,
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 01.
2. SRI. RAVEESH,
S/O. ISHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O. CHOUDIHALLI, KALMANE VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 214.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY
THE 1st RESPONDENT POLICE ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.186/2025 (CC.NO.3871/2025) REGISTERED BY
SHIKARIPURA RURAL POLICE AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED, PENDING BRFORE THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE(JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, SHIKARIPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
CRL.P No. 478 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in S.C.No.14/2026, pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Shikaripura, for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 109, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 352 and 190 of the BNS.
2. Heard Sri. H. Devendrappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3. The petitioners are the accused in crime No.185/2025. The petitioners themselves have registered a crime against the complainant and others in crime No.186/2025. Therefore, the issue is a case and a counter case. While there is no warrant of interference in the case at hand for the reason that the allegation is of serious assault including attempt to murder. While the petitioners have alleged -4- NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR of the same offence against the others in a case and counter case, what is shocking is the State repeating the anomaly of appointing two different Investigating Officers, while the law is clear that there should be only one Investigating Officer in a case and a counter case. The State Government has issued a circular to that effect. The circular appears to have remained only in paper.
4. In an identical circumstance, this Court, in the case of GAJENDRA K.M. v. STATE1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The squabble between two warring factions i.e., the petitioners and the complainant and others is a matter of record, as one incident leaves two complaints. The incident happens on 07.01.2023; Two complaints emerge on 10.01.2023 and 12.01.2023; Two crimes are registered in Crime Nos.4/2023 and 5/2023, therefore it is a case and a counter case, as a solitary incident of assault, against each other results in the aforesaid crimes. The crimes are ostensibly registered before the same police station, as they are registered as a case and a counter case, but Investigating Officers are not the same they are different. Two Investigating Officers are directed to investigate into the crimes, which were alleging identical offences against each other. The offences alleged in the crime registered against these petitioners in Crime No.4/2023 are as follows:
"IPC 1860 (U/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/W 149)"1
Criminal Petition No.6248 of 2024, disposed on 21.08.2024 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR They were the ones punishable as aforesaid.
In Crime No.5/2023, the one registered against the complainant are for the following offences:
"IPC 1860 (U/s-504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324)"
In Crime No.4/2023, charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.364/2023, for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC is laid against these petitioners. In Crime No.5/2023, the charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.394/2023 only for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Section 326 of the IPC ought not to have been dropped from the array of charges against the complainant and others. The Investigating Officer therein has deliberately so done. It is here, it becomes necessary to notice the law, as laid down by the Apex Court or this Court with regard to necessity of the same Investigating Officer investigating into crimes, which result in filing of a case and a counter case.
10. The Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others2, has held as follows:
" 6. For the sake of convenience we have devised to categorize the case under the following headings: (1) cross-cases be tried together, (2) genesis of occurrence; (3) presence of accused Ashok Kumar at the place of incident; (4) common object; (5) right of private defence; and (6) non- explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, by the prosecution.
...............
8. In the instant case, it is undisputed, that the investigating officer submitted the challan on the basis of the complaint lodged by the accused Mishrilal in respect of the same 2 (2003) 9 SCC 426 -6- NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR incident. It would have been just, fair and proper to decide both the cases together by the same court in view of the guidelines devised by this Court in Nathi Lal case [1990 Supp SCC 145 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 638] . The cross-cases should be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of the offence involved. The rational behind this is to avoid the conflicting judgments over the same incident because if cross-cases are allowed to be tried by two courts separately there is likelihood of conflicting judgments. In the instant case, the investigating officer submitted the challan against both the parties. Both the complaints cannot be said to be right. Either one of them must be false. In such a situation, legal obligation is cast upon the investigating officer to make an endeavour to find out the truth and to cull out the truth from falsehood.
Unfortunately, the investigating officer has failed to discharge the obligation, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court observes that the Investigating Officer submits challan on the basis of the complaint lodged by two persons on the same incident. Two challans are registered. The Apex Court observes that both the incidents cannot be true. One of them must be false. Therefore, the Apex Court observes that a same Investigating Officer must investigate into a case and a counter case. The Apex Court was following the judgment earlier rendered in the case of Nathi Lal v. State of U.P 3. In between the judgment so rendered by the Apex Court in Nathi Lal and Mishrilal (supra), the learned Judge of this Court had in the case of Abdul Majid Sab and Others vs State of Karnataka by Ripponpete Police4, had held as follows:
"26. In case and counter, in the final report of both the cases, the I.O., has to necessarily furnish all the documents pertaining to the other case and should explain the genesis of the incident explaining whether it is a free fight between two persons/groups and that both are aggressors. The 3 1990 Supp SCC 145 4 ILR 2010 Kar 1719 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR I.O. should state whether one of the persons/groups is an aggressor and that whether the other has caused injuries in exercise of the right of private defence. It is necessary that the I.O. should explain the injuries on the accused. The final report should necessarily contain the above material to enable the prosecutors to lead evidence correctly and for the Judge to understand the incident in a proper legal perspective to understand the guilt of the accused.
27. It is well-settled principle in a case and a counter the same I.O. should investigate both the cases and should file final report. The different prosecutors should conduct prosecution, the same Judge should try the cases simultaneously and render separate judgments. It is a judicial dicta that the Court should not read/get influenced by the evidence recorded in the other case, unless the said material in the other case is marked as an evidence in the case in question. To say that the Court should not read/influenced by the evidence recorded in the other case under all circumstances would be a perverse view and runs counter to the logic of holding simultaneous investigation by the same I.O. and trial by the same Judge. Otherwise, it is impossible for the Judge to appreciate the guilt of the accused to find out whether both are aggressors and both are guilty of indulging in free fight or one of them is an aggressor and the other caused injuries on the accused in exercise of right of private defence.
28. In this regard for useful benefit, the provisions of Madras Police Standing Orders pertaining to investigation of a case and a counter in Rule-588A are extracted hereunder:
"588-A : Charge sheets in cases and counter cases : In a complaint and counter complaint obviously arising out of the same transaction the Investigating Officer should enquire into both of them and adopt one or the other of the two courses, viz., (1) to charge the case whether the accused were the aggressors or (2) to refer both the cases if he should find them untrue. When the Investigating Officer proceeds on the basis of the complaint it is his duty to exhibit the counter complaint in the Court and also to prove medical certificates of persons wounded on the opposite -8- NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR sides. He should place before the Court a definite case which he asks it to accept. The Investigating Officer in such cases should not accept in to one complaint and examine only witnesses who support it and give no explanations all for the injuries caused to the other side. The truth in these cases is invariably not in strict conformity with either complaint and it is quite necessary that all the facts are placed before the Court to enable it to arrive at the truth and a just decision.
If the Investigating Officer finds that the choice of either course is difficult viz. to charge one of the two cases or to throw out both, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor of the district and act accordingly. A final report should be sent in respect of the case referred as mistake of law and the complainant or the counter-complainant, as the case may be should be advised about the disposal by a notice in F.96 and to seek remedy before the specific Magistrate, if he is aggrieved by the disposal of the case by the Police."
29. We place on record that we have not come across any single case so far where the final reports in case and counter are filed in the manner indicated above. The imprudent and casual practise of submitting final reports without reference to relevant material of the connected case would only result in improper prosecution and many a time the truth of the incident is not projected before the Court, which ultimately result in unjust conviction or unjust acquittal. The Karnataka Police Manual does not lay down any guidelines for the I.O. regarding the procedures to be followed in the investigation of a case and counter and for filing the final report. It is high time that the necessary amendments have to be effected to the Karnataka Police Manual in this regard.
30. In the instant case, the I.O. has suppressed truthful facts. It is in evidence that PW-1, A-2 and A.8 were admitted to Me.Gann Hospital. The complains of PW.1 and A.2 have been recorded at Me.Gann Hospital, why then the wound certificates of A-2 and A-8 are issued by PHC, Anandapur and not by Me Gann Hospital. The I.O. does not explain the injuries on the A-2 and A-8. It is the duty on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the accused. The A.2 and A.8 have produced their wound certificates and copy of the private complaints in -9- NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR their defence. The I.O. has not produced the final report in Crime No. 91/2001 to explain the genesis of the incident and to show which party is an aggressor. In the absence of complete material relating to incident, it will be difficult for the Court to adjudge the guilt of the accused.
31. The FIR lodged by A-2 probabilises the fact that, PW-1, PW-3 to P.W.5, PW.9 and PW.12 along with the deceased have also indulged in the acts of assault on A-2 and A-8 who were also admitted to Me Gann Hospital simultaneously along with the deceased and PW-1. In the circumstances, it can be inferred that in a state of quarrel between the two groups the assault takes place and injuries are inflicted on the members of both the group. The case of the prosecution discloses that in the second phase of attack, it was only A.1 and A.6 who deal blows on the deceased. The others said to have fisted and kicked the deceased. But there are no corresponding injuries to corroborate the overt acts of fisting and kicking. The Trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting A-6 for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court has convicted only A.1 under Section 302 IPC. Since there is no appeal by the State against the acquittal of A.6, it may not be proper to reconsider the order of acquittal.
32. The evidence of the witnesses implicate A-1, A-2, A-6, A-17 to A-20 and A-24 with overt acts of assaulting PW-1, PW-5, PW-12 and the deceased. There is no reference to the overt acts of A.3, to A.5, A.7 to A.16 and A.21 to A.23. The conviction of A.1, A.2, A.6, A.17 to A.20 and A.24 for offence under Section 324 r/w Sec, 149 IPC is confirmed.
33. The conviction of A.3 to A.5 A.7 to A.16 and A.21 to A.23 under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324 r/w Sec. 149 IPC is set aside.
34. The conviction of A.1, A.2 and A.6 under section 148 IPC is confirmed, although improper to the extent in acquitting the other accused who are guilty under Section 148 IPC.
35. The conviction of A.1 under Section 302 IPC is confirmed.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of the Judgment to the Home Secretary, Director General
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR of Police and Hon'ble Law Minister to give effect to the observations made in paras 26, 27 and 28 regarding the procedure to be followed by the I.O. in a 'case and counter' and for effecting necessary amendments to the Karnataka Police Manual."
(Emphasis supplied) This Court, set aside the conviction of the accused inter alia on the said ground and directed the Deputy General of Police to strictly follow the observation and bring in necessary amendments to the Karnataka Police Manual.
11. After the judgment of this Court (supra), the Director-General of Police and Inspector-General of Police, issues a circular on 21.06.2013. The circular reads as follows:
""PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ (¥Éưøï E¯ÁSÉ) ¸ÀA: C¥ÀgÁzsÀ-2/73/j.C/2013 ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj £ÀÈ¥ÀvÀÄAUÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢:21-06-2013 Cw dgÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É «µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À vÀ¤SÉ ºÁUÀÄ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀªÉÇðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼À ¥Á®£É §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀÄ, JgÀqÀ£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð £Áå¬ÄPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 1-4-2013 * * * ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À vÀ¤SÉ ºÁUÀÄ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀªÉÇðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼À ¥Á®£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀÄ, JgÀqÀ£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR £Áå¬ÄPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ §gÉzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹, PÀlÄÖ¤nÖ£À ¥Á®£ÉUÁV F ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
M§â£Éà vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ. CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀt«gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ PÁtĪÀAvÉ n¥Ààt ºÁQ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀgÀ¢, zÀÆgÀÄ, M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À zsÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. EzÉà jÃw ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è EzÀÄ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀt«zÀÄÝ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ §UÉÎ PÁtĪÀAvÉ n¥Ààt ºÁQ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀgÀ¢, zÀÆgÀÄ, M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À zsÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ®UÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
¸ÀzÀj CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À°è vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj WÀl£ÉUÉ ªÀÄÆ® PÁgÀt w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ vÀ£ÀUÉ EzÀÀÄ ªÀåQÛ / UÀÄA¦£À £ÀqÀÄªÉ £ÉÆÃlPÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ºÉÆqÉzÁlzÀ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÄ CªÀgÀ°è zÁ½PÁgÀ / gÀPÀëuÁvÀäPÀ zÁ½ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀªÀgÀ §UÉÎ w½¹ AiÀiÁjUÉ ºÉÃUÉ? AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀtPÉÌ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄAmÁzÀªÀÅ? JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀàµÀÖ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÉÆA¢UÉ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
EzÉà jÃw ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÁUÀÄ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¥Á®£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ PÀAqÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ¥Àjòî£ÉUÉ M§â£Éà C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀjUÉ ¤Ãr £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
ªÉÄð£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖ¤mÁÖV ¥Á°¸À®Ä vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä C¢üãÀzÀ°è §gÀĪÀ J¯Áè C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ vÁQÃvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄ¥ÁPÀ®£Á ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄ.
¸À»/-21/6/13 ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¥Éưøï PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ / ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ / ºÀħâ½î- zsÁgÀªÁqÀ/ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ J¯Áè ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ J¯Áè ¥Éưøï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉfJ¥sï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉʯÉéÃ¸ï ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV ¸ÀgÀPÁj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, JgÀqÀ£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð £Áå¬ÄPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ."
(Emphasis added)
12. The Circular was in tune with what the law is laid down by the Apex Court and this Court. Unfortunately, the circular has remained only on paper. It appears that it is issued only for the sake of its issuance and not its implementation. Ten years have passed by, this Court is coming across
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR plethora of cases where a case and a counter case is still being investigated by two different Investigating Officers. The circular cannot be kept in cold storage, as the reasons for its issuance was to bring in investigation and prosecution in tune with law. There are a few cases where the same Investigating Officer is investigating and there are whole lot of cases where different Investigating Officer investigating the case and a counter case. This result in grave injustice and some times failure of justice. All on account of the callous act on the part of the State in not implementing its own circular notified to implement the law.
13. Therefore, it has become necessary to direct the State to retrace its steps, again issue a circular or bring necessary amendments to the Karnataka Police Manual, failing which, it would continue to act contrary to law, which the State is not expected to do. A circular shall ensue depicting that in the event different Investigating Officers investigate into a case and a counter case, those Investigating Officers would become answerable to a Departmental Action against those persons, who venture into appointing two Investigating Officers to investigate a case and a counter case, as the law is lucid the circular to implement the law is pellucid. Therefore, the State shall henceforth ensure that a case and a counter case shall be investigated by the same Investigating Officer."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Even today, this Court is coming across the cases where in a case and a counter case, two different Investigating Officers are appointed, who would render two different opinions. In one crime the Investigating Officer files a 'B'
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR report, and in the other a charge sheet. While in the case at hand, charge sheet is filed in both the cases, that would not absolve the legal necessity from the hands of the State that a case and a counter case should be investigated only by a solitary Investigating Officer. Therefore, the proceedings must end in quashment and the case and counter case must now begin with investigation from the inception. All this is happening only because of the act of the State in appointing two different Investigating Officers. Therefore, this Court would admonish the competent authority, if this would repeat all over again appropriate steps would be taken bringing in the State for contempt of the orders passed by this Court, despite issuing a circular that a case and a counter case should be dealt with only by a solitary Investigating Officer.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is disposed.
(ii) Further proceedings in SC.No.14/2026 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, qua the petitioners, stand quashed.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11242 CRL.P No. 478 of 2026 HC-KAR
(iii) The case and the counter case i.e., Crime No.185/2025 and Crime No.186/2025, both shall now be investigated into all over again by a solitary Investigating Officer.
(iv) The said Investigating Officer shall submit his
report within one month from the
commencement of such investigation.
(v) The investigation shall commence within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
(vi) In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the charge sheet filed in the counter case also needs to be obliterated. Therefore, as a matter of form, the charge sheet filed in Crime No.186/2025, stands obliterated.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12