Karnataka High Court
Smt. Poornima W/O Sathyanarayan Kasbe vs The State Of Karnataka By Yeshwanthpura ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10026
CRL.P No. 102973 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 102424 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102973 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102424 OF 2025
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
IN CRL.P. NO. 102973 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI. VEERAPPA S/O BASAVAREDDEPPA,
AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED PERSON/RETIRED
P.U. COLLEGE PRINCIPAL, R/O. KALYANA NAGAR,
KOPPAL-583 231, TQ./DIST. KOPPAL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N.D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KOPPAL WOMEN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580 001.
RAKESH
S 2. SMT. PURNIMA S/O SATYANARAYANARAV KASABE,
HARIHAR AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S HARIHAR
R/O. NEAR GUNNAL COMPOUND,
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
RENITI SCHOOL, KOPPAL,
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD TQ./DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 13/03/2020 IN C.C. NO.393/2020 PASSED BY THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL THEREBY TAKING
COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
354(A), 504, 506 OF IPC IN CRIME 01/2020 REGISTERED AT KOPPAL
WOMEN POLICE STATION, HAS PRESENTED THE PRESENT PETITION
AND ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10026
CRL.P No. 102973 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 102424 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN CRL.P. NO. 102424 OF 2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. POORNIMA W/O SATHYANARAYAN KASBE,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE,
R/AT. GUNNAL COMPOUND, REINITI SCHOOL,
NEAR KOPPAL, TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
2. AJAY S/O BASATTEPPA SAJJAN,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. EMPLOYEE,
R/AT. WARD NO.19, KOPPAL,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
3. SHARANAPPA S/O BASATTEPPA SAJJAN,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. EMPLOYEE,
R/AT. WARD NO.19, KOPPAL,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SRI. SUBHASH J. BADDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KOPPAL TOWN POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
AT. DHARWAD-580 004.
2. SHRI VEERAPPA S/O BASAVARADDEPPA RADDER,
AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED PERSON,
R/AT. 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS, KALYAN NAGAR,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL-583 231.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. N.D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 06.06.2025 AND THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.28/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOPPAL,
AGAINST ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3/PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 355, 341 AND 506 READ WITH
34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10026
CRL.P No. 102973 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 102424 of 2025
HC-KAR
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. These two petitions arise between the same parties
and out of the same incident that had taken place on
08.01.2020 and therefore they are heard together with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties and are disposed of
by this common order.
3. FIR in Crime No.1/2020 was registered by Koppal
Women Police Station, Koppala District for the offence
punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 354 of IPC against one
Veerappa, based on the first information dated 08.01.2020
received from Smt. Purnima W/o Sathyanarayanrav kasbe.
After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed in
the said case for the aforesaid offences against Veerappa and
he is now being tried for the charge sheeted offences in
C.C.No.393/2020 before the Court of Principal Civil Judge &
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10026
HC-KAR
JMFC, Koppal. Being aggrieved by the same, he is before this
Court in Crl.P.No.102973/2025.
4. In respect of the very same incident that had taken
place on 08.01.2020, FIR in Crime No.2/2020 was registered by
Koppal Town Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 506, 341, 355, 323 R/w 34 of IPC against Purnima
Kasbe and two others, based on the first information submitted
by aforesaid Veerappa Radder. The Police after completing
investigation had filed a 'B Final report' in Crime No.2/2020.
The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 06.06.2025 has taken
cognizance of the alleged offences against accused Nos.1 to 3
and consequently, he has rejected 'B Final Report' filed in Crime
No.2/2020 by the Police. Assailing the same, accused in Crime
No.2/2020 who are being tried by the jurisdictional Court of
Magistrate in C.C.No.28/2025 are before this Court in
Crl.P.No.102424/2025.
5. The material on record would go to show that, in
respect of the alleged incident that had taken place on
08.01.2020, case and counter case were registered by the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10026
HC-KAR
Koppal Women Police Station and Koppal Town Police Station in
Crime No.1/2020 and Crime No.2/2020. In Crime No.1/2020,
the police after investigation had filed charge sheet, whereas in
Crime No.2/2020, the police after investigation had filed 'B
Final report'. The said 'B Final report' was contested by the first
informant in Crime No.2/2020. Therefore, the learned
Magistrate ought to have passed an order either accepting or
rejecting 'B Final report' filed in Crime No.2/2020 before
proceeding to record sworn statement of the first informant and
taking cognizance of the alleged offences. The law in this
regard has been laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of DR. RAVIKUMAR V. MRS. KMC
VASANTHA AND ANOTHER - ILR 2018 KAR 1725.
However, in Crime No.2/2020, the learned Magistrate without
passing any orders on the 'B Final report' which was submitted
by the investigating officer has proceeded to record the sworn
statement of the first informant and thereafter has taken
cognizance of the alleged offences and consequently has
rejected 'B Final report'. The said approach made by the
learned Magistrate is not in accordance with law and procedure
as contemplated in the case of DR. RAVIKUMAR (supra) has
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10026
HC-KAR
not been followed by the learned Magistrate and therefore, the
order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate in
Crime No.2/2020 taking cognizance of the alleged offences
against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.102424/2025 cannot be
sustained.
6. As stated hereinabove in respect of the alleged
incident that had taken place on 08.01.2020, case and counter
case were registered by Koppal Women Police Station and
Koppal Town Police Station and therefore the incident in
question cannot be in dispute. However, the Police after
investigation have filed charge sheet in Crime No.1/2020 and
had filed 'B Final report' in Crime No.2/2020, which is
challenged by the first informant in Crime No.2/2020. For the
reasons stated aforesaid, this Court has held that the learned
Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the alleged
offences in Crime No.2/2020 and consequently rejecting 'B
Final report' filed in the said case.
7. A case and counter case are criminal cases
originating from a single incident that had taken place in any
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10026
HC-KAR
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. reported in (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 reported in (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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10026
HC-KAR
9. This Court in the case of ABDUL MAJID SAB VS
STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 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, 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 complaints 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 such event, the inherent power
under Section 482 Cr.PC can be exercised by this Court.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in Crl.P.No.102973/2025.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10026
HC-KAR
11. Accordingly, the following:-
ORDER
(i) Crl.P.No.102973/2025 is dismissed.
(ii) Crl.P.No.102424/2025 is allowed in part.
(iii) The order dated 06.06.2025 passed by
the Court of Senior Civil Judge & CJM,
Koppal in Crime No.2/2020 registered by
Koppal Town Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 506,
341, 355, 323 R/w 34 of IPC is set-side
and the matter is remitted back to the
said Court with a direction to proceed
further in accordance with law taking into
consideration the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in DR.
RAVIKUMAR'S (supra) case.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS
CT:BCK
