Karnataka High Court
Anandkumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368
CRL.P No. 201583 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201583 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. ANANDKUMAR
S/O NAGENDRAPPA TIGER,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL SERVICE,
R/O CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI,
PETITIONER NO.1/A-1 AS PER CHARGE SHEET.
2. SHASHIKUMAR
S/O BASAPPA METRI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL SERVICE,
R/O CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI,
Digitally signed by
PETITIONER NO.2/A-2 AS PER CHARGE SHEET.
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CHINCHOLI POLICE STATION, CHINCHOLI
NOW REP. BY ADDL. S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
2. ABHAY KUMAR S/O ESHWARRAO,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AEE,
WORKING AT MAHANAGARA PALIKE, KALABURAGI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368
CRL.P No. 201583 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O H. NO.152, MANIK NAGAR,
TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585330.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 11.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT, KALABURAGI PASSED IN CR.
MISC.NO.1366/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 408 OF
CR.P.C. (448 OF BNSS 2023) VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND
TRANSFER OF C.C. NO.3700/2021 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.8/2021 OF CHINCHOLI POLICE STATION) FROM THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINCHOLI TO THE
FILE OF II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI
FOR ADJUDICATION ALONG WITH CRIME NO.9/2021.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
This petition is filed by the complainant feeling
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Prl. District
and Sessions Court, Kalaburagi on an application filed
under Section 408 of Cr.P.C., wherein petitioners sought
transfer of criminal proceeding pending in CC
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368
HC-KAR
No.3700/2021 on the file of JMFC Court, Chincholli to II
Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. Learned
Sessions Judge has rejected the application, holding that it
is not maintainable.
2. The petitioner No.1, who is the complainant in
Crime No.09/2021, seeks transfer of proceedings in C.C.
No.3700/2021 pending before the learned Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Chincholli, to the Court of the learned
Sessions Judge on the premise that both matters
constitute a case and counter case. It is the specific
contention of the petitioners that since both sets of
allegations arise out of the same incident, the cases are
required to be tried by one and the same Court in order to
avoid conflicting judgments and to ensure a fair and
comprehensive adjudication. Reliance is placed on the Full
Bench judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka v.
Hosakeri Ningappa and Others1, which lays down that
in case and counter case situations, both cases must be
AIR Online 2011 KAR 8
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368
HC-KAR
tried simultaneously by the same Judge, one after the
other, and separate judgments must be rendered.
3. However, this Court finds that the said
contention cannot be acceded to at this stage. The record
reveals that in Crime No.09/2021, which is registered on
the complaint of petitioner No.1 for the offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, the Investigating
Officer has filed a 'B' report opining that no case is made
out. Petitioner No.1, who is the complainant therein, has
indeed filed a protest memo and his sworn statement is
also recorded. Thus, the matter is still at the stage of
consideration of the 'B' report and no cognizance has yet
been taken by the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act.
Unless and until the learned Sessions Judge, who is the
Special Court, rejects the 'B' report and proceeds to take
cognizance of the offences alleged by the complainant,
there cannot be said to exist a "case" within the meaning
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368
HC-KAR
of a criminal proceeding capable of being clubbed or jointly
tried with the counter case pending before the Magistrate.
4. The Full Bench decision in Hosakeri Ningappa
(supra) contemplates a situation where charge sheets
have been filed in both the case and the counter case and
cognizance has been taken in both matters. The principle
of simultaneous trial by the same Judge is applicable only
where both cases are pending trial and evidence is to be
led in respect of the same incident.
5. In the present case, as on date, in Crime
No.09/2021, there is no charge sheet or cognizance ,only
a 'B' report is submitted. Therefore, there is no trialable
proceeding before the Special Court which could be
clubbed with C.C. No.3700/2021 pending before the JMFC.
The application seeking transfer or clubbing is therefore
premature and legally untenable at this juncture.
6. That apart, it is significant to note that the two
proceedings are also triable by Courts of distinct
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368
HC-KAR
jurisdictional competence. The offences alleged in Crime
No.09/2021 involve invocation of the provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, which are exclusively triable by the Special
Court constituted under Section 14 of the said Act. In
contrast, the counter case in Crime No.08/2021
culminating in C.C. No.3700/2021 pertains to offences
under the Indian Penal Code, which are triable by a
Magistrate. Unless the Special Court assumes seisin of the
case by rejecting the 'B' report and taking cognizance, the
question of transferring the Magistrate's case to the
Special Court does not arise, as it would amount to
transferring a validly instituted proceeding before a
competent Magistrate to a Court which does not yet have
a corresponding cognizance pending before it.
7. In view of the above legal and procedural
impediments, this Court is of the considered view that the
present request to withdraw and club the proceedings in
C.C. No.3700/2021 with Crime No.09/2021 is wholly
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368
HC-KAR
premature. The proper course at this stage is for the
learned Sessions Judge/Special Court to expeditiously
consider and decide on the 'B' report filed by the
Investigating Officer. If the learned Judge, upon
consideration of the protest memo and material on record,
rejects the 'B' report and takes cognizance of the offences
alleged by petitioner No.1, only then would the principle of
simultaneous trial in a case and counter case situation
come into operation.
8. Accordingly, while this Court is not inclined to
grant the prayer for transfer at this stage, a direction is
issued to the learned Sessions Judge/Special Court to
expedite consideration of the 'B' report in Crime
No.09/2021 and to pass appropriate orders thereon within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this
order, provided the complainant has no further evidence to
be recorded. In the event the 'B' report is rejected and
cognizance is taken, liberty is reserved to the petitioners
to move an application under Section 408 of Cr.P.C. before
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368
HC-KAR
the Sessions Judge seeking withdrawal and simultaneous
trial of both cases in accordance with the guidelines laid
down by the Full Bench in Hosakeri Ningappa (supra).
9. Till such time the 'B' report is decided and
cognizance, if any, is taken, the criminal proceedings in
C.C. No.3700/2021 pending before the Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Chincholli, shall proceed independently
and shall not be withdrawn or clubbed with any other
case.
10. With these observations, the petition stands
dismissed as being premature.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ
CT:SI
