Karnataka High Court
Tabrez @ Syed Shah Husen Khadri And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 21 January, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:367
CRL.P No. 201115 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201115 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. TABREZ @ SYED SHAH HUSEN KHADRI
S/O SYED KHADRI,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. KATAGAR ONI MB COLONY, SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
2. IBRAHEEM @ SYED SHAH IBRAHEEM KHADRI
S/O SYED KHADRI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. KATAGAR ONI MB COLONY, SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
3. FIROZ @ ABBUSALI @ SYED SHA ABUSALI KHADRI
S/O SYED KHADRI,
Digitally signed AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
by SHILPA R R/O. KATAGAR ONI MB COLONY, SINDHANUR,
TENIHALLI
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. FIYAZ @ SYED SHAH HAZRATH KHADRI
KARNATAKA
S/O SYED KHADRI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. KATAGAR ONI MB COLONY, SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SINDHANUR TOWN PS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:367
CRL.P No. 201115 of 2024
REP. THROUGH ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2. ROSHAN S/O SHASKSHAVALI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: LABORER,
R/O. KATAGAR ONI, MB COLONY, SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584128.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY HCGP FOR R1
SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C (OLD) / U/SEC
528 OF BNSS ACT (NEW) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN C.C NO. 5853/2022 IN CRIME NO.
67/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 504, 323,
324, 342, 506 R/W 34 OF THE IPC 1860, JMFC SINDHANUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in
CC No.5853/2022 pending before the Court of Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur, arising out of Crime No.67/2021
registered by Sindhanoor Town Police Station, Raichur, for the
offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 342, 324, 506
and 34 of IPC.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:367
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.67/2021 was registered by Sindhanoor
Town Police Station, Raichur, against the petitioners herein for
the aforesaid offences on the basis of the first information
dated 04.07.2021 received from respondent No.2 herein. After
investigation, police have filed charge sheet against petitioners
for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court after taking
cognizance of the charge sheeted offences has issued summons
to the petitioners for the charge sheeted offences and being
aggrieved, petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4
before the Trial Court, are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false
case has been registered against the petitioners for extraneous
reasons and petitioners were not at all present at the spot on
the alleged date of incident. Continuation of the criminal
proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law. Accordingly,
he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have
opposed the petition. They submit that there is a case and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:367
counter case in respect of the incident that had taken place on
04.07.2021. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
6. The material on record would go to show that the alleged
incident had taken place on 04.07.2021 and on the basis of the
first information dated 04.07.2021 received from respondent
No.2 herein, FIR in Crime No.67/2021 was registered by
Sindhanoor Police Station, Raichur, against petitioners herein
for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 342, 324,
506 and 34 of IPC. In respect of the very same incident that
had taken place on 04.07.2021, FIR in Crime No.69/2021 was
registered by Sindhanoor Town Police Station, Raichur, for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 427, 448, 504,
323, 506 and 149 of IPC, against Roshan and four others on
the basis of the first information received from Firoz S/o Syed
Khadri, who is arraigned as accused No.3 in the present case.
Though the incident in question had taken place on
04.07.2021, first information in Crime No.69/2021 was
belatedly filed on 13.07.2021. However, by filing the first
information in Crime No.69/2021 virtually the incident in
question is admitted and therefore, the contention urged on
behalf of petitioners that a false case has been filed against
NC: 2025:KHC-K:367
them and they were not present at the spot on the alleged date
of incident cannot be believed. Even otherwise, since case and
counter case has been registered with regard to the incident in
question and since police after investigation have filed charge
sheet in both the cases, both the cases are required to be tried
together in accordance with law.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATHI LAL &
OTHERS VS STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. - (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.
8. This Court in the case of ABDUL MAJID SAB AND
OTHERS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2010 KAR 1719,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:367
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. 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. The same is not the situation in the present case.
Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
