Karnataka High Court
Smt Shashikala vs State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:16066
CRL.P No. 3718 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3718 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHASHIKALA
W/O LATE MUTHURAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT 9th WORD
ANANDA JYOTHI COLONY
BABUJAGAJEEVAN RAV BADAVANE
BALEPETE YELANDUR TOWN
CHAMARAJANAGAR 571 441.
2. SHRI RAJENDRA PRASAD
S/O LATE ASHOKA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT II 27 I.A.J. COLONY
KAGALAVADI VILLAGE
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK
CHAMARAJA NAGAR - 571 441.
Digitally 3. SHRI KIRAN
signed by
PAVITHRA N S/O LATE ASHOKA
Location: AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
High Court RESIDING AT 801, 11th CROSS
of Karnataka
GANDHINAGAR MANDYA TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
4. SMT. CHIKKATAYAMMA
W/O LATE NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT AMBEDKAR BEEDHI
KAGALVADI VILLAGE
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK
CHAMARAJA NAGAR - 571 117.
5. MISS SANGEETHA
D/O LATE MUTHURAJU
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:16066
CRL.P No. 3718 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
RESIDING AT ADIJAMBAVARA STREET
BALEPETE YELANDURE TOWN
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 441.
6. MISS HEMAVATHI
D/O LATE MUTHURAJU
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
RESIDING AT ADIJAMBARANA STREET
BALEPETE YALANDURE TOWN
CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 441.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KRISHNA MOORTHY D, ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
YELANDUR POLICE STATION
YALLANDURU CIRCLE
CHAMARAJA NAGARA
DISTRICT - 571 441
REP/ BY SPP, HIGH COURT
BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. NAGESH
S/O LATE MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT 9th WARD, BALEPETE
YELANDUR TOWN
CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT - 571 441.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. RANGASWAMY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR
IN CR.NO.33/2024 YELANDUR P.S. ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C COURT YELANDUR, CHAMARAJA NAGARA DISTRICT FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506, 341, 323, 114, 307, 354(B),
427, 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:16066
CRL.P No. 3718 of 2024
ORDER
1. Accused nos.1 to 6 are before this Court under Section
482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in
Crime No.33/2024 registered by Yelandur Police Station,
Chamarajanagara District, for the offences punishable under
Sections 504, 506, 341, 323, 114, 307, 354B, 427, 34 IPC.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case.
False allegations have been made by respondent no.2 as
against whom FIR was registered in Crime No.34/2024. He
submits that only as a defence, the impugned criminal
proceedings has been initiated against the petitioners which is a
clear case of abuse of process of law.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He
submits that the offence under Section 307 IPC has been
invoked against the petitioners. Therefore, investigation in the
case is necessary. He also submits that in respect of the very
same incident that had taken place on 04.03.2024, there is a
NC: 2024:KHC:16066
case and counter case. Therefore, the prayer made in this
petition cannot be granted.
5. The material on record would go to show that in respect
of the incident that had taken place on 04.03.2024, FIR in
Crime No.33/2024 was registered by Yelandur Police against
the petitioners herein on the basis of the first information
received from Nagesh S/o Madaiah for the aforesaid offences.
In respect of the very same incident that had taken place on
04.03.2024, accused no.1 herein has also lodged a first
information before the very same police and on the basis of the
same, FIR in Crime No.34/2024 is registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 341, 354B, 323, 506,
149 IPC against Nagesha and nine others.
6. A reading of the first information in both the cases would
go to show that there is a dispute between the parties with
regard to the partition of the joint family properties. It is in this
background, it appears that the parties have fought against
each other and a case and counter case has been registered on
the basis of the first information received from both the parties.
Considering the fact that a case and counter case is registered
NC: 2024:KHC:16066
in respect of the very same incident that had taken place on
04.03.2024, the incident in question cannot be in dispute.
7. A case and counter case are criminal cases originating
from a single incident that had taken place in any particular
area at a specified time or at the same time. Though the Code
of Criminal Procedure or any other statute does not provide as
to how the case and counter cases have to be investigated or
tried, the courts in order to prevent conflicting decisions with
regard to one incident, have laid down the principles as to how
investigation has to be done in a case and counter case and
how the case and counter case are required to be tried.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATHI LAL &
OTHERS VS STATE OF U.P. - (1990) Supp. SCC 145, has laid
down certain procedures to be followed by the courts in a case
and counter case. The said judgment was followed in the
subsequent judgment in the case of STATE OF M.P. VS
MISHRILAL - (2003)9 SCC 426, and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the case and counter case should be tried
together by the same court irrespective of the nature of offence
involved. The rational behind this is to avoid conflicting
NC: 2024:KHC:16066
judgment over the same incident because if cross cases are
allowed to be tried by two courts separately, there is likelihood
of conflicting judgments.
9. This Court in the case of ABDUL MAJID SAB VS STATE OF
KARNATAKA - ILR 2010 KAR 1719, has held that the same
Investigating Officer should investigate both the case viz., case
and counter case and shall file the final report and the case and
counter case should be conducted by separate prosecutors.
10. So far as the power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the
proceedings, in a case and counter case is concerned, having
regard to the fact that the incident in question is not in dispute
so also the spot of crime, in normal circumstances, the High
Court should not venture to quash the proceedings when it is
found that there is a case and counter case in respect of the
same incident between the same parties. However, if the
averments made in the complaint prima facie show that
necessary ingredients for the alleged offences is absent and
proceedings is initiated only as a counter blast to the complaint
lodged by the other party, in the said event, the inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.PC can be exercised by this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:16066
11. In the case on hand, perusal of the averments made in
the complaint would go to show that there are sufficient
material to prosecute the accused for the alleged offences.
Under the circumstances, there cannot be any interference as
against the impugned proceedings. I do not find any good
ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
