Karnataka High Court
Sri Kiran vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2021
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9344 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. SRI KIRAN
S/O NARAYANA POOJARI
AGED ABOUT35 YEARS
ORANGE BAR & RESTAURANT
VINAYAKA CIRCLE, 2ND MAIN
P G HALLI
BENGALURU - 560 003.
2. SRI HARISH
S/O ANAND
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
NO.12/1, 1ST CROSS,
U.V.BLOCK, J.C.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 056.
3. SRI MANU H.,
S/O BELLIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
HANUMANTHAPPAPURA DUDDI
CHENNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
TEMPORARY ADDRESS:
ORANGE BAR & RESTAURANT
VINAYAKA CIRCLE, 2ND MAIN
P G HALLI
BENGALURU - 560 003.
2
4. SRI RAGHU
S/O MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
ABHIGARAHALLI
AKKABAL HOBLI
K R PETTE TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
NO.12/1, 1ST CROSS
U V BLOCK, J.C.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 056.
5. SRI MADHU
C/O KIRANKUMAR
NO.3/1
ORANGE BAR & RESTAURANT
VINAYAKA CIRCLE, 2ND MAIN
P G HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 003.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI VYALIKAVALI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI MANOJ KUMAR DIVEDI
S/O CHADRESH MOHAN DIVEDI
NO.477, 13TH CROSS
9TH MAIN, VYALIKAVAL
BENGALURU - 560 003.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJIT, HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING);
R - 2 SERVED)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.05.2015
THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 341, 323 AND 324
R/W 149 OF IPC PASSED IN C.C.NO.12864/2015.
ii) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.12864/2015
PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, ON THE FILE OF VIII
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 341,
323 AND 324 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings pending before the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and also seeks to quash the order dated 15.05.2015, in C.C.No.12864/2015 for the aforesaid offences.
2. Heard Sri Amar Correa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri K.S.Abhijit, learned High Court Government 4 Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.
3. The lis in the case at hand is a case and a counter case is as follows:
The solitary submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the case in crime No.154/2014 is investigated by a particular Investigating Officer by name Sri L.R.Masuguppi, as could be seen from the charge sheet and the list of witnesses appended to the charge sheet, wherein, Sri L.R.Masuguppi - Investigating Officer is CW.14. Against the petitioners, a counter case is registered in crime No.153/2014, in which the Investigating Officers namely, Sri K. Shankara Char and Sri Sridhar K. Poojaara, who are arrayed as witness Nos.23 and 24.
4. A case against respondent No.2 and others in crime No.153/2014, came to be registered, which is investigated to by two Investigating Officers as aforesaid and a counter case is filed 5 against the petitioners in crime No.154/2014, which is investigated by the Investigating Officer as aforestated.
5. Therefore, on a perusal of the charge sheets, it is clear that the Investigating Officers who have investigated into a case and the counter case, which sprang from a common incident are different. It falls foul of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. HOSAKERI NINGAPPA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2012 KAR 509, wherein it has held as follows:
"6. It is also relevant to note that the investigation is to be conducted by the same Investigating Officer and the prosecution should be conducted by two different Public Prosecutors. The Government of Karnataka has issued the law Circular dated 24.9.1982 bearing No. 4836 and the law Circular dated 12.11. 1982 bearing No. 4839, stipulating that the same Investigation Officer shall investigate case and counter case.
16. To sum up the procedure to be adopted in case and counter case is that the investigation should be conducted by the same Investigating 6 officer and the prosecution should be conducted by two different Public Prosecutors. The trial should be conducted by the same court. After recording the evidence and after hearing the arguments, the judgment should be reserved in one case and thereafter the evidence should be recorded and the arguments should be heard in the other case. It is needless to observe that the arguments in both the matters shall be heard by the same Learned Judge. The judgments should be pronounced by the same Judge simultaneously i.e., one after the other.
In deciding each case, the Trial Judge can only rely on the evidence recorded in that particular case and the evidence recorded in the cross case (or counter case) cannot be looked into. The Judge shall not be influenced by the evidence or arguments in the cross case. However, if the evidence recorded in one case is brought on record in another case in accordance with the procedure known to law, then, such evidence which is legally brought on record can be looked into. Except in such situation, the evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in another case."
(emphasis supplied) 7 In the light of the afore-extracted order, the trial Judge can only rely on the evidence recorded in one case and cannot look into the evidence recorded in another case. The order passed by the full Bench reads as follows:
"18. In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer the points referred to us as under:
(a) If the case and counter case are not tried simultaneously as held by the Supreme court in the case of NATHI LAL vs. STATE OF U.P. (Supra) and in the case of SUDHIR AND OTHER vs. STATE OF M.P. (Supra) the proceedings ipso facto do not get vitiated. But, where the irregular procedure adopted by the Trial court has caused prejudice to the accused and has occasioned failure of justice, the proceeding and the trial vitiates. Otherwise, the proceedings are protected under section 465 of the code.
(b) The evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in the other case. The Trial Judge can only rely upon the evidence recorded in that particular case and the evidence recorded in the cross case cannot be looked into. Each case must be decided on the basis of the evidence which has been placed on record in that particular case. However, if the evidence recorded in one case is brought on record in accordance with procedure 8 known to law in the other case, then , such evidence which is legally brought on record can be looked into.
Otherwise, the evidence recorded in one case cannot be looked into in the other case.
(c) If the Trial court disposes of the case and counter case on different dates acquitting the accused therein and no appeal is preferred in one of the cases and the appeal is preferred in the case decided later, the proceedings in the later case do not automatically get vitiated. Each case has to be judged on its own merits. Unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused, the proceedings in the later case do not get vitiated.
The reference is answered accordingly." Therefore, on the point that the separate Investigating Officers could not have investigated into the offences as alleged stands covered by the aforesaid judgment.
6. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the issue on the merit of the case is concerned, it is germane to notice that the case registered against the other accused in crime No.153/2014, was called in 9 question before this Court in writ petition Nos.58033- 34/2015. This Court by its order dated 27.04.2017, quashed the proceedings against the accused therein, by the following order:
"2. The petitioner is said to be a businessmen who is engaged in real estate and petitioner no.2 is the driver of his car. The respondent had registered a case at the instance of one Pradeep Gowda alleging that the petitioners along with one Manoj Kumar had visited Orange Bar and Restaurant and misbehaved with the bar girls and an altercation is said to have been broken out thereafter. The petitioners had left the bar and again stopped bar girls when they were on their way back home and even injured the complainant. It is in this background that the Police had instituted proceedings.
3. It is pointed out that the entire exercise of Police acting in collusion with the complainant was to foist a false case. This is evident from a plain reading of the First Information Report which is replete with errors which would expose the design of the respondent Police, who are acting at the instance of the complainant merely to foist a false case. This is fortified by the fact that there were serial complaints against the petitioner, all of which now been quashed and the present complaint is one in 10 that series which is pending. Since other complaints have been quashed on a similar note that the entire allegations appear to be stage managed and contrived, the present petition requires to be allowed.
4. The learned Government Pleader would endorse that the First Information Report indeed replete with errors which cannot be reconciled. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in FIR No.153/2014 on the file of the Vyalikaval Police Station stands quashed."
(emphasis supplied) While quashing the proceedings, this Court has observed that since complaints have been quashed under similar note, the entire allegations against the accused therein, was stage managed and contrived and on that reasoning, the criminal petition was allowed. The petitioners have called in question the proceedings in the counter case in crime No.154/2014.
7. Since the Court has quashed the proceedings in crime No.153/2014 and the issue with regard to the different Investigating Officers conducting investigation would vitiate the 11 proceedings permitting trial, in the light of the aforesaid facts, to continue against the petitioners in the counter case, would be abuse of process of law.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.12864/2015 pending on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stands quashed.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj CT:MJ