[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri T Siddappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
CRL.P No. 478 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 478 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. T .SIDDAPPA,
S/O. T. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MAIN ROAD, NEAR NEW BAVIKERE,
KALMANE VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577 214.
2. SRI. NAGARAJ,
S/O. RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SRI. KARIBASAPPA R
S/O RANGAPPA
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY
Location: High 4. RAGHAVENDRA N
Court of S/O NAGARAJ T
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
5. PRAJWAL.R.K,
S/O. KARIBASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
ALL THE PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE
RESIDENTS OF S.S ROAD,
KALMANE VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
CRL.P No. 478 of 2026
HC-KAR
SHIKARIPURA TALUK - 577 214.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RURAL POLICE, SHIKARIPURA,
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 01.
2. SRI. RAVEESH,
S/O. ISHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O. CHOUDIHALLI, KALMANE VILLAGE,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 214.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY
THE 1st RESPONDENT POLICE ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.186/2025 (CC.NO.3871/2025) REGISTERED BY
SHIKARIPURA RURAL POLICE AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED, PENDING BRFORE THE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE(JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, SHIKARIPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
CRL.P No. 478 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 are before this Court
seeking quashment of the proceedings in S.C.No.14/2026,
pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC,
Shikaripura, for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2),
189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 329(4), 109, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2),
352 and 190 of the BNS.
2. Heard Sri. H. Devendrappa, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned
Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent
No.1.
3. The petitioners are the accused in crime
No.185/2025. The petitioners themselves have registered a
crime against the complainant and others in crime
No.186/2025. Therefore, the issue is a case and a counter
case. While there is no warrant of interference in the case at
hand for the reason that the allegation is of serious assault
including attempt to murder. While the petitioners have alleged
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
of the same offence against the others in a case and counter
case, what is shocking is the State repeating the anomaly of
appointing two different Investigating Officers, while the law is
clear that there should be only one Investigating Officer in a
case and a counter case. The State Government has issued a
circular to that effect. The circular appears to have remained
only in paper.
4. In an identical circumstance, this Court, in the case of
GAJENDRA K.M. v. STATE1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.
The squabble between two warring factions i.e., the
petitioners and the complainant and others is a matter of
record, as one incident leaves two complaints. The
incident happens on 07.01.2023; Two complaints emerge
on 10.01.2023 and 12.01.2023; Two crimes are
registered in Crime Nos.4/2023 and 5/2023, therefore it
is a case and a counter case, as a solitary incident of
assault, against each other results in the aforesaid crimes.
The crimes are ostensibly registered before the same
police station, as they are registered as a case and a
counter case, but Investigating Officers are not the same
they are different. Two Investigating Officers are directed
to investigate into the crimes, which were alleging
identical offences against each other. The offences alleged
in the crime registered against these petitioners in Crime
No.4/2023 are as follows:
"IPC 1860 (U/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/W 149)"
Criminal Petition No.6248 of 2024, disposed on 21.08.2024
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
They were the ones punishable as aforesaid.
In Crime No.5/2023, the one registered against the
complainant are for the following offences:
"IPC 1860 (U/s-504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324)"
In Crime No.4/2023, charge sheet is filed in
C.C.No.364/2023, for the offence under Section 326 of
the IPC is laid against these petitioners. In Crime
No.5/2023, the charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.394/2023
only for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and
504 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is the contention
of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that
Section 326 of the IPC ought not to have been dropped
from the array of charges against the complainant and
others. The Investigating Officer therein has deliberately
so done. It is here, it becomes necessary to notice the
law, as laid down by the Apex Court or this Court with
regard to necessity of the same Investigating Officer
investigating into crimes, which result in filing of a case
and a counter case.
10. The Apex Court in the case of
State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others2, has
held as follows:
" 6. For the sake of convenience we have
devised to categorize the case under the following
headings: (1) cross-cases be tried together, (2)
genesis of occurrence; (3) presence of accused
Ashok Kumar at the place of incident; (4) common
object; (5) right of private defence; and (6) non-
explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused,
by the prosecution.
...............
8. In the instant case, it is undisputed, that
the investigating officer submitted the challan
on the basis of the complaint lodged by the
accused Mishrilal in respect of the same
(2003) 9 SCC 426
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
incident. It would have been just, fair and
proper to decide both the cases together by the
same court in view of the guidelines devised by
this Court in Nathi Lal case [1990 Supp SCC 145
: 1990 SCC (Cri) 638] . The cross-cases should
be tried together by the same court
irrespective of the nature of the offence
involved. The rational behind this is to avoid
the conflicting judgments over the same
incident because if cross-cases are allowed to
be tried by two courts separately there is
likelihood of conflicting judgments. In the
instant case, the investigating officer submitted
the challan against both the parties. Both the
complaints cannot be said to be right. Either
one of them must be false. In such a situation,
legal obligation is cast upon the investigating
officer to make an endeavour to find out the
truth and to cull out the truth from falsehood.
Unfortunately, the investigating officer has
failed to discharge the obligation, resulting in
grave miscarriage of justice."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court observes that the Investigating
Officer submits challan on the basis of the complaint
lodged by two persons on the same incident. Two
challans are registered. The Apex Court observes that
both the incidents cannot be true. One of them
must be false. Therefore, the Apex Court observes
that a same Investigating Officer must investigate
into a case and a counter case. The Apex Court was
following the judgment earlier rendered in the case of
Nathi Lal v. State of U.P 3. In between the judgment so
rendered by the Apex Court in Nathi Lal and Mishrilal
(supra), the learned Judge of this Court had in the case of
Abdul Majid Sab and Others vs State of Karnataka
by Ripponpete Police4, had held as follows:
"26. In case and counter, in the final report of
both the cases, the I.O., has to necessarily furnish
all the documents pertaining to the other case and
should explain the genesis of the incident explaining
whether it is a free fight between two
persons/groups and that both are aggressors. The
1990 Supp SCC 145
ILR 2010 Kar 1719
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
I.O. should state whether one of the persons/groups
is an aggressor and that whether the other has
caused injuries in exercise of the right of private
defence. It is necessary that the I.O. should explain
the injuries on the accused. The final report should
necessarily contain the above material to enable the
prosecutors to lead evidence correctly and for the
Judge to understand the incident in a proper legal
perspective to understand the guilt of the accused.
27. It is well-settled principle in a case and a
counter the same I.O. should investigate both
the cases and should file final report. The
different prosecutors should conduct
prosecution, the same Judge should try the
cases simultaneously and render separate
judgments. It is a judicial dicta that the Court
should not read/get influenced by the evidence
recorded in the other case, unless the said
material in the other case is marked as an
evidence in the case in question. To say that
the Court should not read/influenced by the
evidence recorded in the other case under all
circumstances would be a perverse view and
runs counter to the logic of holding
simultaneous investigation by the same I.O.
and trial by the same Judge. Otherwise, it is
impossible for the Judge to appreciate the guilt
of the accused to find out whether both are
aggressors and both are guilty of indulging in
free fight or one of them is an aggressor and
the other caused injuries on the accused in
exercise of right of private defence.
28. In this regard for useful benefit, the
provisions of Madras Police Standing Orders
pertaining to investigation of a case and a counter in
Rule-588A are extracted hereunder:
"588-A : Charge sheets in cases and counter
cases : In a complaint and counter complaint
obviously arising out of the same transaction the
Investigating Officer should enquire into both of
them and adopt one or the other of the two
courses, viz., (1) to charge the case whether the
accused were the aggressors or (2) to refer both
the cases if he should find them untrue. When the
Investigating Officer proceeds on the basis of the
complaint it is his duty to exhibit the counter
complaint in the Court and also to prove medical
certificates of persons wounded on the opposite
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
sides. He should place before the Court a definite
case which he asks it to accept. The Investigating
Officer in such cases should not accept in to one
complaint and examine only witnesses who support
it and give no explanations all for the injuries
caused to the other side. The truth in these cases
is invariably not in strict conformity with either
complaint and it is quite necessary that all the facts
are placed before the Court to enable it to arrive at
the truth and a just decision.
If the Investigating Officer finds that the choice
of either course is difficult viz. to charge one of the
two cases or to throw out both, he should seek the
opinion of the Public Prosecutor of the district and
act accordingly. A final report should be sent in
respect of the case referred as mistake of law and
the complainant or the counter-complainant, as the
case may be should be advised about the disposal
by a notice in F.96 and to seek remedy before the
specific Magistrate, if he is aggrieved by the
disposal of the case by the Police."
29. We place on record that we have not come
across any single case so far where the final reports
in case and counter are filed in the manner indicated
above. The imprudent and casual practise of
submitting final reports without reference to relevant
material of the connected case would only result in
improper prosecution and many a time the truth of
the incident is not projected before the Court, which
ultimately result in unjust conviction or unjust
acquittal. The Karnataka Police Manual does not lay
down any guidelines for the I.O. regarding the
procedures to be followed in the investigation of a
case and counter and for filing the final report. It is
high time that the necessary amendments have to
be effected to the Karnataka Police Manual in this
regard.
30. In the instant case, the I.O. has suppressed
truthful facts. It is in evidence that PW-1, A-2 and
A.8 were admitted to Me.Gann Hospital. The
complains of PW.1 and A.2 have been recorded at
Me.Gann Hospital, why then the wound certificates of
A-2 and A-8 are issued by PHC, Anandapur and not
by Me Gann Hospital. The I.O. does not explain the
injuries on the A-2 and A-8. It is the duty on the part
of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the
accused. The A.2 and A.8 have produced their wound
certificates and copy of the private complaints in
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
their defence. The I.O. has not produced the final
report in Crime No. 91/2001 to explain the genesis
of the incident and to show which party is an
aggressor. In the absence of complete material
relating to incident, it will be difficult for the Court to
adjudge the guilt of the accused.
31. The FIR lodged by A-2 probabilises the fact
that, PW-1, PW-3 to P.W.5, PW.9 and PW.12 along
with the deceased have also indulged in the acts of
assault on A-2 and A-8 who were also admitted to
Me Gann Hospital simultaneously along with the
deceased and PW-1. In the circumstances, it can be
inferred that in a state of quarrel between the two
groups the assault takes place and injuries are
inflicted on the members of both the group. The case
of the prosecution discloses that in the second phase
of attack, it was only A.1 and A.6 who deal blows on
the deceased. The others said to have fisted and
kicked the deceased. But there are no corresponding
injuries to corroborate the overt acts of fisting and
kicking. The Trial Court has committed a grave error
in acquitting A-6 for an offence under Section 302
IPC. The Trial Court has convicted only A.1 under
Section 302 IPC. Since there is no appeal by the
State against the acquittal of A.6, it may not be
proper to reconsider the order of acquittal.
32. The evidence of the witnesses implicate A-1,
A-2, A-6, A-17 to A-20 and A-24 with overt acts of
assaulting PW-1, PW-5, PW-12 and the deceased.
There is no reference to the overt acts of A.3, to A.5,
A.7 to A.16 and A.21 to A.23. The conviction of A.1,
A.2, A.6, A.17 to A.20 and A.24 for offence under
Section 324 r/w Sec, 149 IPC is confirmed.
33. The conviction of A.3 to A.5 A.7 to A.16 and
A.21 to A.23 under Sections 143, 147, 323, 324 r/w
Sec. 149 IPC is set aside.
34. The conviction of A.1, A.2 and A.6 under
section 148 IPC is confirmed, although improper to
the extent in acquitting the other accused who are
guilty under Section 148 IPC.
35. The conviction of A.1 under Section 302 IPC is
confirmed.
The Registry is directed to send a copy of the
Judgment to the Home Secretary, Director General
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
of Police and Hon'ble Law Minister to give effect to
the observations made in paras 26, 27 and 28
regarding the procedure to be followed by the I.O. in
a 'case and counter' and for effecting necessary
amendments to the Karnataka Police Manual."
(Emphasis supplied)
This Court, set aside the conviction of the accused
inter alia on the said ground and directed the Deputy
General of Police to strictly follow the observation and
bring in necessary amendments to the Karnataka Police
Manual.
11. After the judgment of this Court (supra), the
Director-General of Police and Inspector-General of Police,
issues a circular on 21.06.2013. The circular reads as
follows:
""PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
(¥Éưøï E¯ÁSÉ)
¸ÀA: C¥ÀgÁzsÀ-2/73/j.C/2013 ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj
£ÀÈ¥ÀvÀÄAUÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
¢:21-06-2013
Cw dgÀÆgÀÄ
¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉ
«µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À vÀ¤SÉ ºÁUÀÄ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢
¸À°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀªÉÇðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ
wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼À ¥Á®£É §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀÄ, JgÀqÀ£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ
zÀeÉð £Áå¬ÄPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ
¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 1-4-2013
* * *
¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À vÀ¤SÉ ºÁUÀÄ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀªÉÇðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼À ¥Á®£É
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀÄ, JgÀqÀ£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
£Áå¬ÄPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ §gÉzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À
CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¹, PÀlÄÖ¤nÖ£À ¥Á®£ÉUÁV F ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
M§â£Éà vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÁUÀ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¥Àæw
¥ÀæPÀgÀt«gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ PÁtĪÀAvÉ n¥Ààt ºÁQ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀgÀ¢,
zÀÆgÀÄ, M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À zsÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. EzÉÃ
jÃw ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è EzÀÄ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀt«zÀÄÝ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ
§UÉÎ PÁtĪÀAvÉ n¥Ààt ºÁQ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀgÀ¢, zÀÆgÀÄ,
M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À zsÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ®UÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
¸ÀzÀj CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À°è vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj WÀl£ÉUÉ ªÀÄÆ® PÁgÀt
w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ vÀ£ÀUÉ EzÀÀÄ ªÀåQÛ / UÀÄA¦£À £ÀqÀÄªÉ £ÉÆÃlPÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ºÉÆqÉzÁlzÀ
§UÉÎ ºÁUÀÄ CªÀgÀ°è zÁ½PÁgÀ / gÀPÀëuÁvÀäPÀ zÁ½ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀªÀgÀ §UÉÎ w½¹ AiÀiÁjUÉ
ºÉÃUÉ? AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀtPÉÌ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄAmÁzÀªÀÅ? JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀàµÀÖ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÉÆA¢UÉ
CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.
EzÉà jÃw ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÁUÀÄ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¥Á®£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ PÀAqÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ¥Àjòî£ÉUÉ
M§â£Éà C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀjUÉ ¤Ãr £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
ªÉÄð£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖ¤mÁÖV ¥Á°¸À®Ä vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä C¢üãÀzÀ°è §gÀĪÀ J¯Áè
C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ vÁQÃvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄ¥ÁPÀ®£Á ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄ.
¸À»/-21/6/13
ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÀPÀëPÀ
ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV
¥Éưøï PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ / ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ / ºÀħâ½î-
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ/ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ
J¯Áè ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
J¯Áè ¥Éưøï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉfJ¥sï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉʯÉéÃ¸ï ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ
ªÀiÁ»wUÁV
¸ÀgÀPÁj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, JgÀqÀ£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð £Áå¬ÄPÀ
zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ."
(Emphasis added)
12. The Circular was in tune with what the law is
laid down by the Apex Court and this Court.
Unfortunately, the circular has remained only on
paper. It appears that it is issued only for the sake
of its issuance and not its implementation. Ten
years have passed by, this Court is coming across
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
plethora of cases where a case and a counter case
is still being investigated by two different
Investigating Officers. The circular cannot be kept
in cold storage, as the reasons for its issuance was
to bring in investigation and prosecution in tune
with law. There are a few cases where the same
Investigating Officer is investigating and there are
whole lot of cases where different Investigating
Officer investigating the case and a counter case.
This result in grave injustice and some times failure
of justice. All on account of the callous act on the part of
the State in not implementing its own circular notified to
implement the law.
13. Therefore, it has become necessary to
direct the State to retrace its steps, again issue a
circular or bring necessary amendments to the
Karnataka Police Manual, failing which, it would
continue to act contrary to law, which the State is
not expected to do. A circular shall ensue depicting
that in the event different Investigating Officers
investigate into a case and a counter case, those
Investigating Officers would become answerable to
a Departmental Action against those persons, who
venture into appointing two Investigating Officers
to investigate a case and a counter case, as the law
is lucid the circular to implement the law is pellucid.
Therefore, the State shall henceforth ensure that a
case and a counter case shall be investigated by the
same Investigating Officer."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Even today, this Court is coming across the cases
where in a case and a counter case, two different Investigating
Officers are appointed, who would render two different
opinions. In one crime the Investigating Officer files a 'B'
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
report, and in the other a charge sheet. While in the case at
hand, charge sheet is filed in both the cases, that would not
absolve the legal necessity from the hands of the State that a
case and a counter case should be investigated only by a
solitary Investigating Officer. Therefore, the proceedings must
end in quashment and the case and counter case must now
begin with investigation from the inception. All this is
happening only because of the act of the State in appointing
two different Investigating Officers. Therefore, this Court would
admonish the competent authority, if this would repeat all over
again appropriate steps would be taken bringing in the State
for contempt of the orders passed by this Court, despite issuing
a circular that a case and a counter case should be dealt with
only by a solitary Investigating Officer.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is disposed.
(ii) Further proceedings in SC.No.14/2026
pending on the file of Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Shimoga, qua the petitioners,
stand quashed.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11242
HC-KAR
(iii) The case and the counter case i.e., Crime
No.185/2025 and Crime No.186/2025, both
shall now be investigated into all over again
by a solitary Investigating Officer.
(iv) The said Investigating Officer shall submit his
report within one month from the
commencement of such investigation.
(v) The investigation shall commence within 2
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order.
(vi) In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the
charge sheet filed in the counter case also
needs to be obliterated. Therefore, as a
matter of form, the charge sheet filed in Crime
No.186/2025, stands obliterated.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
