1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA

CRL.P. NO.1461/2018

BETWEEN

1.

MANSOOR

S/O LATE HAMEED M K

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

R/AT DANDINPET

KUSHALNAGAR

KODAGU DISTRICT-573 231

2.

IRFAN

S/O ABDUL AZEEZ

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

R/AT VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE

KUSHALNAGAR

KODAGU DISTRICT-573 231

3.

HIDAYATHULLA

S/O ABDUL AHAMAD KHAN

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

R/AT NEAR SBI B.M. ROAD

KUSHALNAGAR

KODAGU DISTRICT-573 231

4.

FAYAZ

S/O LATE HAMEED M K

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

R/AT DANDINPET

KUSHALNAGAR

KODAGU DISTRICT-573 231

5.

MUNNA @ ABDUL RAHIMAN

S/O LATE HAMEED M K

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

2

R/AT DANDINPET

KUSHALNAGAR

KODAGU DISTRICT-573 231

6.

FAREED

S/O LATE HAMEED M K

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

R/AT DANDINPET

KUSHALNAGAR

KODAGU DISTRICT-573 231

7.

RASOOL

S/O. ADAM,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

R/AT DANDINPET,

KUSHALNAGAR,

KODAGU DISTRICT-573 231 ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY KUSHALNAGAR POLICE STATION

KODAGU DISTRICT

REP BY THE S.P.P.

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BANGALORE-560 001

2.

NOORULLA H

S/O LATE A M HANEEF

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

R/AT DANDINPET

KUSHALNAGAR

KODAGU DISTRICT-573 231 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R-1;

NOTICE TO R-2 D/W V.O.D. 01.06.18)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO

QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE

PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.66/2017 (CR.NO.30/2016) OF

3

KUSHALNAGAR P.S., KODAGU DISTRICT ON THE FILE

OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MADIKERI AT KODAGU.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG

WITH IA NO.1/2018 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

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

4

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 2^nd 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.

5

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

2^nd respondent, as no adverse order is passed sofar as

the proceedings in S.C.No.64/2017 is concerned.

6.

It