Karnataka High Court
Mahaveer Chand And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 28 May, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3345
CRL.P No. 200287 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200287 OF 2024 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHAVEER CHAND
S/O LATE KISHANLAL DHOKA,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. KAJGARWADI, YADGIR,
NOW AT 45, VAIDYARAMAN STREET,
T NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017.
2. DHANRAJ S/O PURANMALJI DHOKA,
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. BEHIND LAXMI HOTEL,
Digitally
signed by KALLUR COLONY,
SACHIN
Location: RAICHUR-586 101.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
3. R. SARAVANAN
S/O N.V. RAMAMOORTHY,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 526/1, ERIKARAI STREET,
KARTHIKEYAPURAM,
MADIPAKKAM,
KANCHEEPURAM-600 091.
(TAMIL NADU)
...PETITIONERS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3345
CRL.P No. 200287 of 2024
(BY SRI ASHOK MULAGE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH YADGIRI TOWN P.S, YADGIRI,
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
2. SANDEEP KUMAR
S/O MITHALAL DHOKA,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. KAJGARWADI, YADGIRI,
DIST: YADGIRI-585 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R-1)
CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE PETITION AND QUASH THE F.I.R. COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE
CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.132/2022 OF YADGIR TOWN P.S.
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 323, 341, 504, 506
R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND C.J.M. AT YADGIR IN C.C.NO. 1586/2023 AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.1586/2023 before the Court Senior
Civil Judge & CJM, Yadgir arising out of Crime
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3345
No.132/2022 registered by Yadgir Town Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504,
506 R/w 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.132/2022 was registered by
Yadgir Town Police Station, Yadgir District against the
petitioners for the aforesaid offences on the basis of first
information received from Sandeep Kumar on 18.12.2022.
In the typed copy of first information date 18.12.2022 that
was submitted by Sandeep Kumar before the SHO, Yadgir,
it is averred that the petitioners are his close relatives and
they have a dispute between themselves regarding joint
family property and several cases were pending between
them before the Court. It is in this background on
30.11.2022 at about 5-6 p.m, the accused persons had
wrongfully restrained the first informant and had criminally
intimidated him with dire consequences to life. It is also
alleged that accused had assaulted the first informant and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3345
when the first informant's brother tried to interfere, the
accused persons also assaulted him. It is in this
background, the first informant approached the police and
submitted a first information, based on which FIR in Crime
No.132/2022 was registered by Yadgir Town Police Station
against the petitioners and another.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
there are multiple civil disputes between the parties and
false case has been filed against the petitioners only to
coerce and harass them. He submits that in the incident
that had taken place on 30.11.2022, the petitioners are
the victims and in spite of the same a false complaint has
been registered. He submits that there is inordinate delay
in filing complaint and only to counter the criminal case
registered against the first informant, the impugned
criminal proceedings has been initiated.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader has opposed the petition. He submits that there is
a case and counter case in respect to the incident that had
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3345
taken place on 30.11.2022 and in both the cases, the
police after investigation have filed charge sheet.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The material on record would go to show that
the petitioners and the first informant are close relatives
and they have multiple disputes between themselves with
regard to family property. There are multiple cases
pending between themselves in various courts with regard
to incident that had taken place on 30.11.2022, on the
basis of first information submitted by accused No.1 on
15.12.2022, FIR in Crime No.131/2022 was registered by
Yadgir Town Police Station against Sandeep Dhoka, the
first informant herein and his brother Vedanth Dhoka. In
respect of the very same incident that had taken place on
30.11.2022, FIR in Crime No.132/2022 has been
registered against the petitioners on the basis of first
information submitted by Sandeep Kumar on 18.12.2022.
Both the parties have belatedly approached the police and
submitted first information in respect of the incident that
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3345
had allegedly taken place on 30.11.2022. Merely for the
reason that there are civil dispute between the parties, the
same cannot be a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings, if the allegations found in the FIR and in the
charge sheet, prima-facie make out a case for the alleged
offences against the accused. In respect of the incident
that had taken place on 30.11.2022, there is a case and
counter case registered against both the parties. In view
of the registration of a case and counter case, the alleged
incident that had taken place on 30.11.2022 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
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3345
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 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
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3345
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.
11. In the case on hand, perusal of the averments
made in the complaint would go to show that there are
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3345
sufficient materials 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.
12. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS
