Abdul Rehman S/O Gaffasab Farash Vs the State of Karnataka

MAQSOOD AHAMMED @ MASSUD AHAMMAD S/O JAINULABIDIN AURANGABAD, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. ARALLIKATTI ONI, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-580 020.

¶24

… RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR 1; SRI. MAQBOOL AHMED M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT, FIR REGISTERED IN GHANTIKERI PS CRIME NO.36/2023 AND CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI IN CC NO.11613/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 354, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10554 CRL.P No. 100453 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶33

Petitioners are before this Court with a prayer

¶34

to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.11613/2023 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi arising out of Crime No.36/2023 registered by Ghantikeri Police Station, Hubballi for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 50 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶37

there is a delay in filing the complaint and the same is not properly explained. There are no specific allegation against the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4, in the charge sheet. Only to counter blast the criminal case registered against the first informant, a false criminal case

¶38

has been registered against the petitioners in view of the ill-will between the parties. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10554 CRL.P No. 100453 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the

¶42

petition.

¶43

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, in respect of the alleged incident that had taken place on 24.09.2023, a case and a counter case has been registered in Crime No.35 of 2023 and Crime No.36 of 2023 by Ghantikeri Police Station, Hubballi. FIR in Crime No.35 of 2023 was registered by Ghantikeri Police Station, Hubballi, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC based on first information dated 24.09.2023, received from Noorahammad who is arrayed as accused No.1 in the present proceedings. The said FIR has been registered against Maqsudahamad urf Masundahamad Aurngabad and 5 others.

¶44

Based on the first information received from Maqsudahammad urf Masundahamad Aurngabad, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.35 of 2023, the

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10554 CRL.P No. 100453 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

present proceeding in Crime No.36 of 2023 is registered by the very same police station for the aforesaid offences.

¶48

In both the cases, investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.

¶49

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that both the parties had fought against each other in the alleged incident that had taken place on 24.09.2023 and had suffered injuries and it is under these circumstances, a case and a counter case has been registered against each other.

¶50

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

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10554 CRL.P No. 100453 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

investigation has to be done in a case and counter case and how the case and counter case are required to be tried.

¶54

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 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.

¶55

This Court in the case of ABDUL MAJID SAB

¶56

VS STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2010 KAR

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10554 CRL.P No. 100453 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

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.

¶60

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 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.

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10554 CRL.P No. 100453 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

In the case on hand, perusal of the averments

¶64

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. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶65

Criminal Petition is dismissed .

¶66

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶67

JUDGE

¶68

KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 64

Abdul Rehman S/O Gaffasab Farash v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rehman S/O Gaffasab Farash v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivamma Gayakwad D/O G Chinna Papa Rao Vs State of Karnataka

G Thulasi Rao S/O Nagoji Rao Gayakwad Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Shrinath S/O Tulasidas Kamat Vs the State of Karnataka

Salman S/O Mahamadrafik Mulla Vs the State

Sri. Ravi N Alias Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddappa S/O Revaneppa Khoder Vs Durgamma W/O Siddappa Khoder