Sri H N Babu Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT/B-REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.475/2023, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XXXVII ACMM, AT BENGALURU.

¶26

IN CRL.P NO. 12098/2025

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI H.N.BABU REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY H., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO-279, 8^TH CROSS,

¶29

28^TH MAIN, 1^ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 102.

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

(BY SRI K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY – 560 102

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶38

SRI V.KARTHIKEYAN S/O VARADARAJAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.525, 8^TH CROSS, 30^TH MAIN, HSR SECTOR-1, BENGALURU – 560 102.

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;

¶41

SRI SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶42

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.474/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING IN SPL.C.NO.805/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r) AND (s) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDED ACT 2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU.

¶43

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the filing of the 'B' report in connection with crime No.475/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

¶50

Heard Sri. K.B.K. Swamy, learned counsel

¶51

appearing for the petitioner; Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Sridhar Prabhu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶52

Facts in brief germane are as follows:

¶53

The second respondent is the complainant in the case at hand. On a incident that takes place on 23.10.2023, a complaint comes to be registered in crime No.474/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 323 of the IPC. On the next day, the petitioner files a complaint on the same incident, which becomes a crime in crime No.475/2023.

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

In crime No.474/2023 against these petitioners, the Police after investigation file a 'B' report and in the crime that is registered against these petitioners, a charge sheet is filed. The reason is that the Investigating Officer in crime No.474/2023 is different from the Investigating Officer in crime No.475/2023. The said anomaly is being repeated by the State, despite the orders passed by this Court and a circular issued to that effect that in a case and a counter case, the investigation should be conducted by a sole/solitary Investigating Officer and not two different Investigating Officers.

¶57

4. This Court in Crl.P.No.6248/2024 disposed on

¶58

21.08.2024 as held as follows:

¶59

"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:

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

"IPC 1860 (U/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/W 149)"

¶63

They were the ones punishable as aforesaid.

¶64

In Crime No.5/2023, the one registered against the complainant are for the following offences:

¶65

"IPC 1860 (U/s-504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323,

¶66

324)"

¶67

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.

¶68

The Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others¹ , has held as follows:

¶69

" 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) nonexplanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, by the prosecution.

¶70

1 (2003) 9 SCC 426

¶71

7 -

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

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 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."

¶75

(Emphasis supplied)

¶76

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

¶77

2 1990 Supp SCC 145

¶78

8 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Majid Sab and Others vs State of Karnataka by Ripponpete Police³ , had held as follows:

¶82

"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.

¶83

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.

¶84

3 ILR 2010 Kar 1719

¶85

9 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

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:

¶89

“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 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.

¶90

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.”

¶91

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

¶92

10 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

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.

¶96

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.

¶97

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

¶98

11 -

¶99

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

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.

¶102

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.

¶103

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.

¶104

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.

¶105

35. The conviction of A.1 under Section 302 IPC is confirmed.

¶106

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."

¶107

(Emphasis supplied)

¶108

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.

¶109

After the judgment of this Court (supra), the Director-General of Police and Inspector-General of

¶110

12 -

¶111

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

Police, issues a circular on 21.06.2013. The circular reads as follows:

¶114

(¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï E¯ÁSÉ)

¶115

¸ÀA: C¥ÀgÁzsÀ-2/73/j.C/2013 ªÀÄºÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

¶116

DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÄºÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj

¶117

£ÀÈ¥ÀvÀÄAUÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ

¢:21-06-2013

Cw dgÀÆgÀÄ

¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À vÀ¤SÉ ºÁUÀÄ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÁUÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀªÉÇðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼À ¥Á®£É §UÉÎ.

¶122

G¯ÉèÃR: ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀÄ, JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð £Áå¬ÄPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 1-4-2013

¶123

¶124

¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À vÀ¤SÉ ºÁUÀÄ CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÁUÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÀªÉÇðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼À ¥Á®£É ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀgÀÄ, JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ C¥ÀgÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð £Áå¬ÄPÀ zÀAqÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ F PÀbÉÃjUÉ §gÉzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹, PÀlÄÖ¤nÖ£À ¥Á®£ÉUÁV F ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶125

M§â£ÉÃ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

¶126

� CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÁUÀ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀt«gÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ PÁtÄªÀAvÉ n¥ÀàtÂ 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 PÁtÄªÀAvÉ n¥ÀàtÂ ºÁQ ªÉÆzÀ® ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀgÀ¢, zÀÆgÀÄ, M¼ÀUÉÆAqÀ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À zsÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

¶127

13 -

¶128

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

� ¸ÀzÀj CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À°è vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj WÀl£ÉUÉ ªÀÄÆ® PÁgÀt w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ vÀ£ÀUÉ Ez À Ä ªÀåQÛ / UÀÄA¦£À £ÀqÀÄªÉ £ÉÆÃlPÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ 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.

¶131

EzÉÃ jÃw ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ºÁUÀÄ ¥Àæw ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À CAwªÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¥Á®£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ PÀAqÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ¥ÀjÃ²Ã®£ÉUÉ M§â£ÉÃ C©üAiÉÆÃdPÀjUÉ ¤Ãr £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¶132

ªÉÄÃ°£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖ¤mÁÖV ¥Á°¸À®Ä vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä C¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°è §gÀÄªÀ J¯Áè C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ vÁQÃvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄ¥ÁPÀ®£Á ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄvÀPÀÌzÀÄ.

¶133

¸À»/-21/6/13 ªÀÄºÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÄºÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV

¶134

¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï PÀ«ÄÃµÀ£Àgï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ / ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ / ºÀÄ§â½îzsÁgÀªÁqÀ/ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ

¶135

J¯Áè ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄºÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ

¶136

J¯Áè ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, PÉfJ¥sï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉÊ¯ÉéÃ¸ï ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ

ªÀiÁ»wUÁV

(Emphasis added)

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

¶141

14 -

¶142

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

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.

¶145

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.

¶146

Swinging back to the facts of the case, the Investigating Officers have filed their respective charge sheets 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."

¶147

Despite the passage of this order, the action of the State

¶148

in appointing two different Investigating Officers to investigate into a case and a counter case is being repeated. It is shocking that the State does not adhere to the law and the circular so

¶149

15 -

¶150

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶151

HC-KAR

¶152

issued by them and make them remain only on paper. Therefore, while admonishing the State that it should not indulge in repeatedly violating the law, the petition deserves to succeed with the 'B' report being obliterated.

¶153

In the light of it being a case and a counter case, the charge sheet so filed in the case registered against these petitioners, though not before this Court, will also have to meet the same fate as the 'B' report and the investigation will have to recommence by the same Investigating Officer.

¶154

For the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶155

ORDER

¶156

(i) The criminal petitions stand allowed .

¶157

(ii) The final report / ‘B’ report filed in Crime No.475/2023 pending before the XXXVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, impugned in Crl.P.No.12127/2025 and the final report / charge sheet filed in Spl.C.No.805/2024 (arising out of Crime No.474/2023), pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

¶158

16 -

¶159

NC: 2026:KHC:8756 CRL.P No. 12127 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 12098 of 2025

¶160

HC-KAR

¶161

and Special Judge, Bengaluru, impugned in Crl.P.No.12098/2025 stand quashed.

¶162

(iii) The matters are remitted back to the hands of the State to appoint a solitary Investigating Officer to investigate into both the crimes, i.e., case and a counter case.

¶163

(iv) The Investigating Officer shall conduct investigation and file his final report before the concerned Court, within three months from the date of its commencement, in the light of the fact that this is an old matter.

¶164

Ordered accordingly.

¶165

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶166

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri H N Babu Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H N Babu Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Veena Vs State of Karnataka

Keerthik R J Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. K Shankarmurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinidhi L S Vs Sri Shekar S

Dr. Mohammed Asif @ Mohammed Asif Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Miss Ambika Bera Vs State of Karnataka by