Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 982 (KAR)

Ramesh Babu v. M. VS State of Karnataka

2022-07-29

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following relief; "To quash the proceedings in SC No.72/2018 pending on the file of VI the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, for the offences punishable under Sec.341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC on the complaint by the 2nd Respondent". 2. The Jayanagara Police Station, Tilaknagar, Tumakuru registered a FIR in Crime No.126/2016 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC based on the statement given by the respondent No.2 in the hospital alleging that on 22/12/2016 at about 3.00 p.m. when the respondent No.2 parked his car in front of the house of petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 abused him in a filthy language. Thereafter, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and their son came near the house being constructed and confined the complainant and abused the complainant in a filthy language and assaulted the complainant on his head with a stick with an intension to kill him and assaulted him with a mud stone. It is alleged that at the time of quarrel certain other people stopped the quarrel and at the time of departure the petitioner threatened the complainant with his life. The respondent No.2 was taken to hospital where he gave a statement. The Police upon investigation have filed charge sheet against the petitioners in C.C.No.3069/2017 and committed the case before Sessions Judge, Tumakuru in S.C. No.72/2018. 3. Sri.Venugopal M.S, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have also filed a complaint in Crime No.127/2017 for the offences punishable under Ss. 323, 504, 506 and Sec. 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sec. 34 of IPC. As such, he submits that the Crime No.126/2017 has been registered as a counter blast against the petitioners. He further submit that the case in Crime No.126/2017 and case in Crime No.127/2017 have been investigated by two different officers when they ought to have been investigated by same investigating officer. On this basis, he submitted that the same goes to root of the matter requiring proceedings against the petitioners to be quashed. He further submit that the case in Crime No.126/2017 and case in Crime No.127/2017 have been investigated by two different officers when they ought to have been investigated by same investigating officer. On this basis, he submitted that the same goes to root of the matter requiring proceedings against the petitioners to be quashed. With regard to Investigating Officer, he relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.100101/2016 dtd..17/3/2022 wherein, this Court has held that whenever there is a complaint and a counter complaint, the same would have to be investigated by a single Investigating Officer. 4. He further submits that the complaint filed against the petitioners is completely false, inasmuch as, no such assault has occurred and no such injuries has been caused and now the allegation has been made more particularly, as regards to the weapon used in the incident and wound certificate would indicate that no such grievous injuries could be caused and no offence under Sec. 307 of IPC could not be made out. 5. Lastly, he submit that dispute between the petitioners and second respondent-complainant is civil in nature and same is given a criminal tint by filing a criminal case in Crime No.126/2017 and on this ground he submitted that proceedings against the petitioners are to be quashed. 6. Sri M.N. Madhusudhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that serious allegations have been made against the petitioners, inasmuch as, wound certificates which have been produced would indicate that there are grievous injuries which has been caused to the respondent No.2-complainant. He submits that all other submissions made by Sri.Venugopal are in the nature of defence or otherwise which would have to be adjudicated in the proceedings after trial. As such, the matter requires trial and this Court need not interfere the matter by quashing the proceedings. 7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the papers. 8. First contention urged by Sri. Venugopal M.S, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of the decision in Crl.A.No.100010/2016 dtd. 17/3/2022, a Single Investigating Officer is required to investigate a complaint under a counter complaint. The said judgment relied upon by the petitioners has also been authored by me. Perused the papers. 8. First contention urged by Sri. Venugopal M.S, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of the decision in Crl.A.No.100010/2016 dtd. 17/3/2022, a Single Investigating Officer is required to investigate a complaint under a counter complaint. The said judgment relied upon by the petitioners has also been authored by me. The said judgment deals with a situation where a complaint and a counter complaint were investigated by two different Investigating Officers and upon examination of the evidence on record, this Court had come to a conclusion that there is prejudice which has been caused to the complainant and counter complainant and also that the investigation which has been made was improper. The said finding was on the basis of the evidence which was on record and after trial at the Appellate stage. 9. The said judgment was never intended to be a reason or cause for seeking quashing of the proceedings under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. On account of a complaint and a counter complaint being investigated by two different Investigating Officers, no party can claim benefit of the same, unless prejudice is shown during the course of trial. Hence, for these reasons, the first contention of the learned counsel is liable to be rejected, and it is rejected. 10. As regards contention Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, that is, no such injuries had occurred and the matter was civil in nature. The fact being that both the petitioners and respondent No.2 had filed complaints against each other and incident having been admitted, whether there was in fact injuries caused and the same is grievous in nature resulting in attracting of the offence under Sec. 307 of IPC or not is one which is required to be examined by the trial Court and not by this Court. Hence, reserving all defences which are available to the petitioners to be agitated before the trial Court, the petition is dismissed. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. On account of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration. Hence, I.A.No.1/2019 is rejected.