Karnataka High Court

Kiran Gouda S/O Panchangouda vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2022

Bench: J.M.Khazi

                           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

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

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

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

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

ILR 2012 KAR 509

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

1990 Supp SCC 145

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.

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.