Sri Gajendra K M Vs. State By Police Sub Inspector - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1235570
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided OnAug-21-2024
Case NumberCRL.P 6248/2024
JudgeM.NAGAPRASANNA
AppellantSri Gajendra K M
RespondentState By Police Sub Inspector
Excerpt:
- 1 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 in the high court of karnataka at bengaluru r dated this the21t day of august, 2024 before the hon'ble mr justice m.nagaprasanna criminal petition no.6248 of2024between:1. sri gajendra k.m., s/o munishamappa aged about26years.2. sri babu s/o byathyappa aged about33years.3. sri byathyappa s/o late narayanappa aged about80years.4. smt. venkatalakshmamma w/o byathyappa aged about70years.5. smt. susheelamma w/o munishamappa aged about40years.6. smt. manula w/o babu aged about28years all are residing at kotturu village tekal hobli malur taluk, kolar district – 563 101. …petitioners (by sri chokkareddy, advocate) - 2 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 and:1. state by police sub-inspector masthi police station represented by state public prosecutor high court building bengaluru – 560 001.2. sri venkatesh s/o late muniyappa aged about42years residing at eekambhahalli village kolar, kasaba hobli kolar taluk and district – 563 101. …respondents (by sri jagadeesha b.n., addl.spp for r-1; sri praneeth g.n., advocate for r-2) this criminal petition is filed under section482of cr.p.c., praying to quash annexure a the criminal proceedings in c.c.no.364/2023 filed by1t respondent-masthi police - masti, for an alleged offence p/u/s143 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, read with149of ipc against the petitioner based on the complaint filed by the2d respondent sri.venkatesh s/o muniyappa same is pending on1t additional civil judge and jmfc at malur as annexure b. this petition, coming on for admission, this day, order was made therein as under: - 3 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 coram: hon'ble mr justice m.nagaprasanna oral order the petitioners are before this court calling in question the proceedings in c.c.no.364/2023 registered for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 504 read with section 149 of the ipc.2. heard the learned counsel sri.chokkareddy, appearing for the petitioners, the learned additional state public prosecutor sri.jagadeesha b.n., appearing for respondent no.1 and the learned counsel sri.praneeth g.n., appearing for respondent no.2.3. facts in brief, germane are as follows: the petitioners are accused. the respondent no.2 is the complainant. an incident allegedly taken place on 07.01.2023 springs into two crimes. one in crime no.4/2023 and another in crime no.5/2023. the police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet in both the crimes in crime nos.4/2023 and - 4 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 5/2023. the charge sheets are filed in c.c.no.394/2023 against the complainant and in c.c.no.364/2023 against the petitioners. the petitioners have knocked at the doors of this court in the subject petition contending that few of the accused, who had infact indulged in assault on the petitioners and against whom offence punishable under section 326 of ipc was laid has been dropped from the array of accused. while all the petitioners are charge sheeted for several offences in a complaint registered by the second respondent against the petitioners.4. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the incident happened on 07.01.2023 and two complaints emerge first on 10.01.2023 and the second on 12.01.2023. they are registered as crime nos.4/2023 and 5/2023. the police have laid charge sheet in both these cases but there is material difference in the charge sheet laid against the petitioners and in the complaint against the second respondent.-. 5 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 5. it is therefore the submission of the learned counsel that both the crimes ought to have investigated by the same investigating officer, so that the discrepancy in laying of the charge sheet in both the crimes would not arise. according to the learned counsel, all the allegations made against these petitioners are false it is in fact, the complainant and others who have indulged in assault on the petitioners.6. the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 - complainant would vehemently refute the submission to contend the police after investigation filed appropriate charge sheet before the concerned court. merely because an accused is dropped while filing the charge sheet, it cannot be said that the investigating officer is biased or has filed a partisan charge sheet. he would contend though the law is that one investigating officer should investigate a case and a counter case, in the case at hand, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners, as charge sheet is filed in both the cases.7. the learned additional state public prosecutor sri.jagadeesha b.n., appearing for the state would also toe the - 6 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 lines of the counsel for respondent no.2 but would admit the law that a case and a counter case should be investigated into by the same investigating officer. he would also admit a circular to that effect being issued by the director-general of police and inspector-general of police on 21.06.2023.8. i have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and the learned additional state public prosecutor and have perused the material on record.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 - 7 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 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:"ipc1860(u/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w149" they were the ones punishable as aforesaid. in crime no.5/2023, the one registered against the complainant are for the following offences:"ipc1860(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 - 8 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 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 others1, 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 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 scc145:1990. 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 1 (2003) 9 scc426- 9 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 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.p2 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 police3 , had held as follows:2. 1990 supp scc1453 ilr2010kar 1719 - 10 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 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 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 - 11 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 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 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.-. 12 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 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 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.-. 13 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 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 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 - 14 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É «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 zÁsgÀªÁqÀ 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 £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. (cid:1) m§â£Éà vÀ¤sÁ¢üpÁjaiÀÄÄ jgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀæpÀgÀtuÀ¼À vÀ¤sÉaiÀÄ£ÀÄß pÉÊuÉƼÀî¨ÉÃpÀÄ. (cid:1) 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 zÀÈsrüÃpÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwuÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®uÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃpÀÄ. ezÉà 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 zÀÈsrüÃpÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwuÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®uÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃpÀÄ. (cid:1) ¸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. (cid:1) 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.-. 15 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 ¸À»/-21/6/13 ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀpÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dgÀpÀëpÀ ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃpÀëpÀgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁv ¥Éưøï pÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï, ¨ÉauÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀuÀgÀ / ªÉÄʸÀÆgÄÀ £ÀuÀgÀ / ºÀħâ½î- zsÁgÀªÁqÀ/ªÀÄauÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀuÀgÀ j¯Áè ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤jÃpÀëpÀgÀÄuÀ¼ÀÄ j¯Áè ¥Éưøï c¢üÃpÀëpÀgÀÄuÀ¼ÀÄ, pÉfj¥ïs ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉʯÉéÃ¸ï ¸ÉÃjzÀavÉ ªÀiÁ»wuÁv ¸ÀgÀpÁj c©üaiÉÆÃdpÀgÀ pÀbÉÃj, jgÀqÀ£Éà c¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð £Áå¬ÄpÀ zÀaqÁ¢üpÁjuÀ¼À £ÁåaiÀiÁ®aiÀÄ zÁsgÀªÁqÀ.” (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 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 - 16 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 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.14. swinging back to the facts of the case, the investigating officers have filed their respective charge sheets - 17 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 in crime nos.4/2023 and 5/2023 - a case and a counter case. that being contrary to law, the investigation so conducted would be rendered unsustainable. therefore, in exercise of my jurisdiction under section 482 of the cr.p.c., i deem it appropriate to obliterate the investigation so conducted in crime nos.4/2023 and 5/2023 and direct reinvestigation to be conducted in crime nos.4 and 5/2023.15. for the aforesaid reasons, the following: order i) the criminal petition is allowed-in-part; ii) the proceedings in c.c.nos.364/2023 and 394/2023 pending on the file of the i additional civil judge and j.m.f.c., malur, stands quashed. iii) the state is directed to get the matter reinvestigated in crime nos.4 and 5/2023 from the hands of the same investigating officer. iv) the said investigation / reinvestigation shall conclude, within three months from the date of its entrustment and commencement. v) a copy of this order shall be furnished to the secretary, department of home affairs, deputy - 18 - nc:2024. khc:33494 crl.p no.6248 of 2024 general of police and the hon'ble law minister to bring about an amendment to the karnataka police manual and issuance of a circular in furtherance of the one that is issued on 21.06.2013, which shall clearly indicate that any violation by different investigating officers conducting investigation in a case and a counter case would become open to departmental action from the hands of the state. sd/- (m.nagaprasanna) judge kg list no.:1. sl no.:2.
Judgment:

- 1 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6248 OF2024BETWEEN:

1. SRI GAJENDRA K.M., S/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT26YEARS.

2. SRI BABU S/O BYATHYAPPA AGED ABOUT33YEARS.

3. SRI BYATHYAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT80YEARS.

4. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O BYATHYAPPA AGED ABOUT70YEARS.

5. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT40YEARS.

6. SMT. MANULA W/O BABU AGED ABOUT28YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOTTURU VILLAGE TEKAL HOBLI MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 AND:

1. STATE BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR MASTHI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. SRI VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT42YEARS RESIDING AT EEKAMBHAHALLI VILLAGE KOLAR, KASABA HOBLI KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI PRANEETH G.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE A THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.364/2023 FILED BY1T RESPONDENT-MASTHI POLICE - MASTI, FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S143 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, READ WITH149OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER BASED ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE2D RESPONDENT SRI.VENKATESH S/O MUNIYAPPA SAME IS PENDING ON1T ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MALUR AS ANNEXURE B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER

WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.364/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Chokkareddy, appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.Jagadeesha B.N., appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Praneeth G.N., appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: The petitioners are accused. The respondent No.2 is the complainant. An incident allegedly taken place on 07.01.2023 springs into two crimes. One in Crime No.4/2023 and another in Crime No.5/2023. The Police conduct investigation and filed a charge sheet in both the crimes in Crime Nos.4/2023 and - 4 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 5/2023. The charge sheets are filed in C.C.No.394/2023 against the complainant and in C.C.No.364/2023 against the petitioners. The petitioners have knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition contending that few of the accused, who had infact indulged in assault on the petitioners and against whom offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC was laid has been dropped from the array of accused. While all the petitioners are charge sheeted for several offences in a complaint registered by the second respondent against the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the incident happened on 07.01.2023 and two complaints emerge first on 10.01.2023 and the second on 12.01.2023. They are registered as Crime Nos.4/2023 and 5/2023. The Police have laid charge sheet in both these cases but there is material difference in the charge sheet laid against the petitioners and in the complaint against the second respondent.-. 5 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 5. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel that both the crimes ought to have investigated by the same Investigating Officer, so that the discrepancy in laying of the charge sheet in both the crimes would not arise. According to the learned counsel, all the allegations made against these petitioners are false it is in fact, the complainant and others who have indulged in assault on the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant would vehemently refute the submission to contend the police after investigation filed appropriate charge sheet before the concerned Court. Merely because an accused is dropped while filing the charge sheet, it cannot be said that the Investigating Officer is biased or has filed a partisan charge sheet. He would contend though the law is that one Investigating Officer should investigate a case and a counter case, in the case at hand, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners, as charge sheet is filed in both the cases.

7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.Jagadeesha B.N., appearing for the State would also toe the - 6 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 lines of the counsel for respondent No.2 but would admit the law that a case and a counter case should be investigated into by the same Investigating Officer. He would also admit a circular to that effect being issued by the Director-General of Police and Inspector-General of Police on 21.06.2023.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and have perused the material on record.

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 - 7 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 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:

"IPC1860(U/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/W149" They were the ones punishable as aforesaid. In Crime No.5/2023, the one registered against the complainant are for the following offences:

"IPC1860(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 - 8 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 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 Others1, 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 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 SCC145:

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 1 (2003) 9 SCC426- 9 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 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.P2 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 Police3 , had held as follows:

2. 1990 Supp SCC1453 ILR2010Kar 1719 - 10 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024

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 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 - 11 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 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 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.-. 12 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 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 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.-. 13 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 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 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 - 14 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É «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 zÁsgÀªÁqÀ 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 £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. (cid:1) M§â£Éà vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ. (cid:1) 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 zÀÈsrüÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. EzÉà 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 zÀÈsrüÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. (cid:1) ¸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. (cid:1) 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.-. 15 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 ¸À»/-21/6/13 ªÀĺÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀĺÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¥Éưøï PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ / ªÉÄʸÀÆgÄÀ £ÀUÀgÀ / ºÀħâ½î- zsÁgÀªÁqÀ/ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ J¯Áè ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀĺÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ J¯Áè ¥Éưøï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉfJ¥ïs ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉʯÉéÃ¸ï ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ»wUÁV ¸ÀgÀPÁj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, JgÀqÀ£Éà C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð £Áå¬ÄPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zÁsgÀªÁqÀ.” (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 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 - 16 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 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.

14. Swinging back to the facts of the case, the Investigating Officers have filed their respective charge sheets - 17 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 in Crime Nos.4/2023 and 5/2023 - a case and a counter case. That being contrary to law, the investigation so conducted would be rendered unsustainable. Therefore, in exercise of my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., I deem it appropriate to obliterate the investigation so conducted in Crime Nos.4/2023 and 5/2023 and direct reinvestigation to be conducted in Crime Nos.4 and 5/2023.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER

i) The criminal petition is allowed-in-part; ii) The proceedings in C.C.Nos.364/2023 and 394/2023 pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Malur, stands quashed. iii) The State is directed to get the matter reinvestigated in Crime Nos.4 and 5/2023 from the hands of the same Investigating Officer. iv) The said investigation / reinvestigation shall conclude, within three months from the date of its entrustment and commencement. v) A copy of this Order shall be furnished to the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Deputy - 18 - NC:

2024. KHC:33494 CRL.P No.6248 of 2024 General of Police and the Hon'ble Law Minister to bring about an amendment to the Karnataka Police Manual and issuance of a circular in furtherance of the one that is issued on 21.06.2013, which shall clearly indicate that any violation by different Investigating Officers conducting investigation in a case and a counter case would become open to Departmental Action from the hands of the State. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KG List No.:

1. Sl No.:

2.