In a case and a counter-case arising from the same incident, the law mandates that both must be investigated by the same Investigating Officer to ensure a fair trial, prevent conflicting judgments, and correctly determine the aggressor.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 19.07.2020 IN CR.NO.86/2020 OF BANAVARA POLICE STATION, ARSIKERE RURAL CIRCLE, HASSAN FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 341, 307, 504, 323 R/W SEC.34 OF THE IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN. AND CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.07.2020 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A, BEFORE BANAVARA POLICE STATION.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners in Crl.P.No.11817/2025 call in question the proceedings in SC.No.241/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 323, 324, 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short) and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.500/2025 call in question the proceedings in S.C.No.92/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri. Ravindra B. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.11817/2025 and respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.500/2025; Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Sham A. Nemical, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.11817/2025 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.500/2025 and have perused the material on record.

3. One incident that happens on 19.07.2020 becomes the fulcrum of two proceedings. One in Crime No.86/2020 and the other in Crime No.85/2020. Therefore, it is a case and a counter case. The offences are identical except in one case what is projected is an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Investigation ensues pursuant to the registration of the subject crimes. The investigation is not conducted by the same Investigating Officer, notwithstanding the fact that it is a case and a counter case.

4. In an identical circumstance, this Court, in the case of GAJENDRA K.M. v. STATE¹Criminal Petition No.6248 of 2024, disposed on 21.08.2024, has held as follows:

"…. …. ….

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The squabble between two warring factions i.e., the petitioners and the complainant and others is a matter of record, as one incident leaves two complaints. The incident happens on 07.01.2023; Two complaints emerge on 10.01.2023 and 12.01.2023; Two crimes are registered in Crime Nos.4/2023 and 5/2023, therefore it is a case and a counter case, as a solitary incident of assault, against each other results in the aforesaid crimes. The crimes are ostensibly registered before the same police station, as they are registered as a case and a counter case, but Investigating Officers are not the same they are different. Two Investigating Officers are directed to investigate into the crimes, which were alleging identical offences against each other. The offences alleged in the crime registered against these petitioners in Crime No.4/2023 are as follows:

"IPC 1860 (U/s 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 R/W 149)"

They were the ones punishable as aforesaid.

In Crime No.5/2023, the one registered against the complainant are for the following offences:

"IPC 1860 (U/s-504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324)"

In Crime No.4/2023, charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.364/2023, for the offence under Section 326 of the IPC is laid against these petitioners. In Crime No.5/2023, the charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.394/2023 only for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that Section 326 of t