Karnataka High Court
Mahammadjaffar Hussenkhan Lodi vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10514
CRL.P No. 103130 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103130 OF 2024
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MAHAMMAD JAFFAR HUSSENKHAN LODI,
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
R/O. TARALUBALU BADAVANE,
RATTIHALLI, TQ. RATTIHALLI,
DIST. HAVERI-581 116.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A.C. CHAKALABBI AND
SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(PSI RATTIHALLI POLICE STATION, RATTIHALLI)
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-580 011.
2. NAGARAJ S/O MALLAPPA SUNAGAR,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TARALUBALU BADAVANE,
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, RATTIHALLI,
RAKESH HARIHAR
S Location: HIGH
COURT OF
HARIHAR KARNATAKA
TQ. RATTIHALLI, DIST. HAVERI-581 116.
DHARWAD
BENCH ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIREKERUR IN
CC NO.824/2023 ARISING OUR OF RATTIHALLI P.S. CRIME
NO.138/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
323, 324, 504 OF I.P.C., IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.1 IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10514
CRL.P No. 103130 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused in C.C.No.824/2023 pending before the
Court of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hirekerur, Haveri District
arising out of Crime No.138/2022 registered by Rattihalli Police
Station, Haveri District for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324 & 504 of IPC is before this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the entire
proceedings in the aforesaid case against him.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated
the grounds urged in the petition submits that there is a civil
dispute between the parties and it is in this background a false
case has been filed against the petitioner. He submits that
victim has not suffered any injury in the present case and
therefore offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC has been
dropped in the charge sheet. Only to harass the petitioner a
false complaint has been filed against him. The first informant
and his companion were the aggressor in the present case and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10514
HC-KAR
initially they had assaulted the petitioner. Therefore, a separate
case has been registered against the first informant and others
in Crime No.139/2022 by the very same Police Station.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition.
She submits that there is a case and counter case in respect of
the alleged incident that had taken place on 09.11.2022. Both
the parties have suffered simple injury in the incident in
question. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show
that, parties to this petition are neighbourers. It appears that
there is some civil dispute between them with regard to certain
property. The said dispute between the parties has been now
ended in filing of suit in O.S.No.277/2023 before the
jurisdictional civil Court.
6. Insofar as the present case is concerned initially FIR
was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307,
324 R/w 34 of IPC against the petitioner and another in Crime
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10514
HC-KAR
No.138/2022, based on the first information submitted by
Nagaraj Mallappa. After investigation is completed charge sheet
has been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences
and the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC has been
dropped in the charge sheet.
7. According to charge sheet allegation petitioner
herein had assaulted the first informant with a wooden club on
his right wrist and left forearm and as a result the victim has
suffered simple injury. It is under these circumstances, charge
sheet has been filed invoking offences punishable under
Sections 323, 324 & 504 of IPC. The victim has taken medical
treatment for the injuries sustained by him. CW.7 is the doctor,
who has issued wound certificate. CWs.4 and 5 are eye
witnesses to the alleged incident that had taken place on
09.11.2022.
8. It is also relevant to note that here that FIR in
Crime No.139/2022 was registered by Rattihalli Police Station
against the first informant in the present case and others,
based on the complaint submitted by the petitioner herein.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10514
HC-KAR
Therefore, it is very clear that a case and counter case has
been registered in respect of the alleged incident that had
taken place on 09.11.2022.
9. Learned HCGP has brought to the notice of this
Court that both the parties have suffered simple injury as a
result of assault made by each other on the alleged date.
10. 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.
11. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10514
HC-KAR
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.
12. 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.
13. 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10514
HC-KAR
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.
14. 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. Therefore, I
do not find any good ground to entertain this petition.
15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
NMS/CT:BCK
