Karnataka High Court
Anandkumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368
CRL.P No. 201583 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201583 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. ANANDKUMAR
S/O NAGENDRAPPA TIGER,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL SERVICE,
R/O CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI,
PETITIONER NO.1/A-1 AS PER CHARGE SHEET.
2. SHASHIKUMAR
S/O BASAPPA METRI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL SERVICE,
R/O CHINCHOLI, DIST. KALABURAGI,
Digitally signed by
PETITIONER NO.2/A-2 AS PER CHARGE SHEET.
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CHINCHOLI POLICE STATION, CHINCHOLI
NOW REP. BY ADDL. S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
2. ABHAY KUMAR S/O ESHWARRAO,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AEE,
WORKING AT MAHANAGARA PALIKE, KALABURAGI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368
CRL.P No. 201583 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O H. NO.152, MANIK NAGAR,
TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585330.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 11.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS COURT, KALABURAGI PASSED IN CR.
MISC.NO.1366/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 408 OF
CR.P.C. (448 OF BNSS 2023) VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND
TRANSFER OF C.C. NO.3700/2021 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.8/2021 OF CHINCHOLI POLICE STATION) FROM THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHINCHOLI TO THE
FILE OF II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI
FOR ADJUDICATION ALONG WITH CRIME NO.9/2021.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This petition is filed by the complainant feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Court, Kalaburagi on an application filed under Section 408 of Cr.P.C., wherein petitioners sought transfer of criminal proceeding pending in CC -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2025 HC-KAR No.3700/2021 on the file of JMFC Court, Chincholli to II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. Learned Sessions Judge has rejected the application, holding that it is not maintainable.
2. The petitioner No.1, who is the complainant in Crime No.09/2021, seeks transfer of proceedings in C.C. No.3700/2021 pending before the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chincholli, to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge on the premise that both matters constitute a case and counter case. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that since both sets of allegations arise out of the same incident, the cases are required to be tried by one and the same Court in order to avoid conflicting judgments and to ensure a fair and comprehensive adjudication. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Hosakeri Ningappa and Others1, which lays down that in case and counter case situations, both cases must be 1 AIR Online 2011 KAR 8 -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2025 HC-KAR tried simultaneously by the same Judge, one after the other, and separate judgments must be rendered.
3. However, this Court finds that the said contention cannot be acceded to at this stage. The record reveals that in Crime No.09/2021, which is registered on the complaint of petitioner No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC, the Investigating Officer has filed a 'B' report opining that no case is made out. Petitioner No.1, who is the complainant therein, has indeed filed a protest memo and his sworn statement is also recorded. Thus, the matter is still at the stage of consideration of the 'B' report and no cognizance has yet been taken by the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act. Unless and until the learned Sessions Judge, who is the Special Court, rejects the 'B' report and proceeds to take cognizance of the offences alleged by the complainant, there cannot be said to exist a "case" within the meaning -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2025 HC-KAR of a criminal proceeding capable of being clubbed or jointly tried with the counter case pending before the Magistrate.
4. The Full Bench decision in Hosakeri Ningappa (supra) contemplates a situation where charge sheets have been filed in both the case and the counter case and cognizance has been taken in both matters. The principle of simultaneous trial by the same Judge is applicable only where both cases are pending trial and evidence is to be led in respect of the same incident.
5. In the present case, as on date, in Crime No.09/2021, there is no charge sheet or cognizance ,only a 'B' report is submitted. Therefore, there is no trialable proceeding before the Special Court which could be clubbed with C.C. No.3700/2021 pending before the JMFC. The application seeking transfer or clubbing is therefore premature and legally untenable at this juncture.
6. That apart, it is significant to note that the two proceedings are also triable by Courts of distinct -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2025 HC-KAR jurisdictional competence. The offences alleged in Crime No.09/2021 involve invocation of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which are exclusively triable by the Special Court constituted under Section 14 of the said Act. In contrast, the counter case in Crime No.08/2021 culminating in C.C. No.3700/2021 pertains to offences under the Indian Penal Code, which are triable by a Magistrate. Unless the Special Court assumes seisin of the case by rejecting the 'B' report and taking cognizance, the question of transferring the Magistrate's case to the Special Court does not arise, as it would amount to transferring a validly instituted proceeding before a competent Magistrate to a Court which does not yet have a corresponding cognizance pending before it.
7. In view of the above legal and procedural impediments, this Court is of the considered view that the present request to withdraw and club the proceedings in C.C. No.3700/2021 with Crime No.09/2021 is wholly -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2025 HC-KAR premature. The proper course at this stage is for the learned Sessions Judge/Special Court to expeditiously consider and decide on the 'B' report filed by the Investigating Officer. If the learned Judge, upon consideration of the protest memo and material on record, rejects the 'B' report and takes cognizance of the offences alleged by petitioner No.1, only then would the principle of simultaneous trial in a case and counter case situation come into operation.
8. Accordingly, while this Court is not inclined to grant the prayer for transfer at this stage, a direction is issued to the learned Sessions Judge/Special Court to expedite consideration of the 'B' report in Crime No.09/2021 and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, provided the complainant has no further evidence to be recorded. In the event the 'B' report is rejected and cognizance is taken, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to move an application under Section 408 of Cr.P.C. before -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6368 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2025 HC-KAR the Sessions Judge seeking withdrawal and simultaneous trial of both cases in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Full Bench in Hosakeri Ningappa (supra).
9. Till such time the 'B' report is decided and cognizance, if any, is taken, the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.3700/2021 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chincholli, shall proceed independently and shall not be withdrawn or clubbed with any other case.
10. With these observations, the petition stands dismissed as being premature.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16 CT:SI