Karnataka High Court

Doddaveeresh @ Veeresh And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 12 July, 2023

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudarpresided Byhcj

                                                   -1-
                                                          NC: 2023:KHC-K:5261
                                                          CRL.P No. 200336 of 2023




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

                                 DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                                                 BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200336 OF 2023 (482-)
                       BETWEEN:

                       1.     DODDAVEERESH @ VEERESH AND ORS
                              S/O HUSENAPPA, AGE. 40 YEARS,
                              OCC. AGRICULTURE

                       2.     AMARESH @ AMBARISH S/O KALYANAPPA
                              AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE

                       3.     KALYANAPPA S/O PAMPANNA
                              AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE

                       4.     KRISHNAPPA S/O PAMPANNA
                              AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE

                       5.     HUSENAPPA S/O PAMPANNA
                              AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE

                       6.     RAMESH S/O KRISHNAPPA
Digitally signed by
LUCYGRACE
                              AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
                       7.     SHANKRAMMA W/O KALYANAPPA
                              AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE

                       8.     SARASWATI W/O AMRESH
                              AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE

                       9.     LAXMI @ LAXMIDEVI W/O HUSENAPPA
                              AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE

                       10. RUKKAMMA @ RUKMINI
                           W/O DODDA VEERESH @ VEERESH
                           AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
                                -2-
                                     NC: 2023:KHC-K:5261
                                     CRL.P No. 200336 of 2023




     ALL ARE R/O UMALIPANNUR
     TQ. MANVI DIST. RAICHUR.

                                                ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR
     REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENCH AT KALABURAGI THROUGH MANVI PS.
     DIST. RAICHUR-584101.

                                                ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M PATIL, HCGP)

       THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT     MAY   BE   PLEASED    TO   QUASH    THE     ORDER   OF
COGNIZANCE      DATED   12.01.2023    AND    ENTIRE    CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 225/2022 IN CC NO. 17/2023
PENDING ON THE LEARNED JMFC MANVI, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 354, 504,
506 R/W 149 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.I.A.1/2023 FOR STAYI.A.1/2023 FILED U/S.482 OF
CR.P.C.PRAYING TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.17/2023 (CRIME NO. 225/2022) PENDING ON THE FILE
OF LEARNED JMFC MANVI, IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.

       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               -3-
                                     NC: 2023:KHC-K:5261
                                     CRL.P No. 200336 of 2023




                             ORDER

The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 10, who are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC, have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC challenging the impugned proceeding.

2. The police, after completing the investigation, laid the charge sheet. The learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking exception to the same, the accused are before this Court.

3. The respondent No.2 though served with notice has not chosen to appear in person or through her counsel.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused Nos.1 to 10 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State.

5. The case of the prosecution is that, on 15.10.2022 at about 6.15 p.m., when the defacto complainant, and her children were proceeding in front of the house of the petitioners, the petitioners abused them in filthy language, and assaulted with stick, rod and tried to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant. The petitioner No.3 had lodged the FIR against the 2nd respondent and her family members, and the same has been registered for the offences punishable under

NC: 2023:KHC-K:5261 CRL.P No. 200336 of 2023

Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

6. Though the alleged incident has taken place on 15.10.2022, the defacto complainant lodged the FIR on 19.10.2022 after the FIR was registered against her and her family members in Crime No.224/2022. Hence, it is implied that, the FIR lodged by the defacto complainant as a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the petitioner No.3 so as to circumvent the same. A perusal of the wound certificate indicates that, the defacto complaint has not sustained any external injury, except complaining pain over lower limb, which admittedly does not come under the definition of simple injury, but it is slight harm as specified under Section 95 of IPC, and the same is not an offence.

7. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka -vs- Hosakeri Ningappa and another (2011 SCC OnLine Kar 3694) has held as under:

6. It is also relevant to note that the investigation is to be conducted by the same Investigating Officer and the prosecution should be conducted by two different Public Prosecutors. The Government of Karnataka has issued the law Circular dated 24.9.1982 bearing No. 4836 and the law Circular dated 12.11.1982 bearing No. 4839, stipulating that the same Investigation Officer shall investigate case and counter case.

16. To sum up, the procedure to be adopted in case and counter case is that the investigation should be conducted by the same Investigating Officer and the prosecution should be conducted by two different Public Prosecutors. The trial should be conducted by the same Court. After recording the evidence and after hearing the arguments, the judgment should be reserved in one case

NC: 2023:KHC-K:5261 CRL.P No. 200336 of 2023

and thereafter the evidence should be recorded and the arguments should be heard in the other case. It is needless to observe that the arguments in both the matters shall be heard by the same Learned Judge. The judgments should be pronounced by the same Judge simultaneously i.e., one after the other.

In deciding each case, the Trial Judge can only rely on the evidence recorded in that particular case and the evidence recorded in the cross case (or counter case) cannot be looked into. The Judge shall not be influenced by the evidence or arguments in the cross case. However, if the evidence recorded in one case is brought on record in another case in accordance with the procedure known to law, then, such evidence which is legally brought on record can be looked into. Except in such situation, the evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in another case.

18. In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer the points referred to us as under:

(a) If the case and counter case are not tried simultaneously as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. (Supra) and in the case of Sudhir v. State of M.P. (Supra) the proceedings ipso facto do not get vitiated. But, where the irregular procedure adopted by the Trial Court has caused prejudice to the accused and has occasioned failure of justice, the proceeding and the trial vitiates. Otherwise, the proceedings are protected under Section 465 of the Code.

(b) The evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in the other case. The Trial Judge can only rely upon the evidence recorded in that particular case and the evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case. However, if the evidence recorded in one case is brought on record in accordance with procedure known to law in the other case, then, such evidence which is legally brought on record can be looked into. Otherwise, the evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in the other case.

NC: 2023:KHC-K:5261 CRL.P No. 200336 of 2023

(c) If the Trial Court disposes of the case and counter case on different dates acquitting the accused therein and no appeal is preferred in one of the cases and the appeal is preferred in the case decided later, the proceedings in the later case do not automatically get vitiated. Each case has to be judged on its own merits. Unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused, the proceedings in the later case do not get vitiated.

The reference is answered accordingly.

8. The investigation of the allegation made in the impugned FIR arising out of the same incident by a different Investigating Officer is impermissible. Even otherwise, except making the omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific allegation as to the specific overt act against each of the petitioners. The FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive, and malice, without any probable cause. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: