1. Issuance of notice to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

2. The petitioners, who arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 7 in S.C.No.66/2017 arising out of Crime No.30/2016 have filed this petition seeking quashing of S.C.No.66/2017, which is pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Somawarpet, Kodagu District.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that on the basis of the complaint lodged on 26.01.2016 in between 11:30 am. to 12:30 pm. The police have originally registered a Crime No.30/2016 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 448, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and after completion of the investigation, police have filed a charge sheet and after committal, a case has been registered in S.C.No.66/2017. On the basis of the counter case lodged by the 2nd respondent, in connection with the same offences, which occurred between the same parties, the police have also registered Crime No.31/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 read with Section 149 of IPC and in that case also, the police have completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet and after committal, a Sessions Case has been registered against the six accused persons in S.C.No.64/2017.

4. The learned counsel contended that both cases have been investigated by the same Investigating Officer which is illegal and it should have been investigated by two independent Investigating Officers. Further, he contends that, after committal of the proceedings, the State has not appointed a separate Public Prosecutor to conduct the counter case in S.C.No.64/2017. Therefore, it is a clear violation of the recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated by serious incurable defect, as such, proceedings in S.C.No.66/2017 is liable to be quashed.

5. There is no dispute with regard to the factual aspects in this particular case. It is only a pure question of law involved in this particular case. Therefore, there is no need to issue any notice to the 2nd respondent, as no adverse order is passed sofar as the proceedings in S.C.No.64/2017 is concerned.

6. It is worth to mention here a decision of this court reported in ILR 2012 KAR Page 509 between State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police V/s Hosakeri Ningappa and Another, wherein this court has specifically laid down certain principles to be followed by the Police and as well as the Court in respect of the case and counter case being registered by police and thereafter entertained by the courts. In view of the above said decision, it is clear that, if a case and counter case are registered, investigation should be conducted by the same Investigating Officer, but prosecution should be conducted by two different public prosecutors and the trial should be conducted by the same court. After recording the evidence and after hearing the arguments in a case, the judgment should be reserved and thereafter, evidence should be recorded and the arguments should be heard in the other case and in both the matters, the judgment should be pronounced simultaneously one after another on the same day, by the same Judge, who heard the matters. At this stage, I feel that, it is worth to reproduce here the relevant portions of the said judgment for ready reference, which reads thus:-

(A) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – Case and counter case-Trial of-Procedure to be followed in the absence of a specific statute-Importance of law declared by the Supreme Court in trying the case and counter case – HELD, The procedure to be adopted in case and counter case is that the investigation should be conducted by the same Investigating 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 argume