Kalander Shafi Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.93/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 74, 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 OF BNS PERTAINING TO BANTWAL TOWN POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT BANTWALA, D.K DISTRICT.

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:36691 CRL.P No. 12250 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the FIR and the complaint registered in Cr.No.93/2025 by the Bantwal Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 115(2), 118(1), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of BNS, 2023, pending on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Bantwala, Dakshina Kannada District.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating

¶38

the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that it was petitioner No.4 who sustained grievous head injuries as a result of an assault allegedly perpetrated by respondent No.2 and his associates. It is submitted that this assault led to registration of a criminal case in Crime No.94/2025 at the instance of the petitioners. Placing reliance on the wound certificate and other

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:36691 CRL.P No. 12250 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

contemporaneous medical records, learned counsel would

¶43

argue that the present complaint filed by respondent No.2 is nothing but a retaliatory proceeding aimed at countering the earlier complaint registered by the petitioners. To fortify this submission, reliance was placed on title documents to demonstrate that the occurrence took place within the premises of petitioner No.1, and that respondent No.2, accompanied by a group of persons described as “goondas”, unlawfully trespassed into the said property and assaulted the petitioners.

¶44

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, referring to the materials collected so far, would submit that the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 contains clear and specific allegations attributing overt acts to each of the petitioners. He would further contend that, at this preliminary stage, when investigation is in progress, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioners, particularly when the allegations prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences. It is therefore

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:36691 CRL.P No. 12250 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

urged that the petition be dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail of such remedies as may be available to them at the appropriate stage.

¶49

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the records, this Court finds that two complaints have been registered in relation to the very same incident. The first, lodged by the petitioners, alleges that respondent No.2 along with others was the aggressor and that petitioner No.4 sustained serious injuries in the occurrence. The second, lodged by respondent No.2, attributes specific overt acts to all the petitioners and alleges assault and other offences on their part. In situations where there is a case and a counter-case concerning the same incident, the law requires a fair and impartial investigation so as to ascertain the truth of the matter. Both parties having acknowledged the occurrence,

¶50

it is for the Investigating Officer to collect evidence, examine the rival versions, and determine who was the

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:36691 CRL.P No. 12250 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

aggressor and who suffered injuries in the course of the incident.

¶55

This Court is of the considered opinion that, at

¶56

this stage, it would not be appropriate to interfere with or selectively stay the investigation in one of the two crime numbers while permitting the Investigating Officer to proceed in the other. Such a course of action would result in a one-sided investigation and may prejudice the rights of either party. The proper course is to allow the same Investigating Officer to investigate both complaints in accordance with law and to submit a report upon completion of the investigation. In the event a charge sheet is filed against the petitioners, they are at liberty to question its validity or maintainability before the competent forum in accordance with law.

¶57