In cases and counter-cases arising from the same incident, it is a mandatory requirement of law that a solitary Investigating Officer performs the investigation for both to ensure a fair, consistent, and logical conclusion, avoiding conflicting judgments and miscarriage of justice.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SC NO.229/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, INSTITUTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1-SAKALESHPURA TOWN POLICE ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 109, 329(3), 324(4), 352, 351(2), 74 OF BNS, 2023 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.229/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109 , 329(3), 324(4), 352, 351(2), 74 of the BNS 2023.

2. Heard Sri.Venugopala M.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and have perused the material on record.

3. The incident that takes place on 27.06.2024 results in registration of two crimes. One in Crime No.258/2025 and the other in Crime No.259/2025 for the same offences. The issue in the lis is not with regard to the merit of the claim of the petitioner on the offences. An illegality that cuts at the root of the matter is what is projected by the petitioner. Since it was a case and a counter case in Crime No.258/2025 and Crime No.259/2025, they ought to have been investigated by a solitary Investigating Officer.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Officers in both these cases and counter cases are different, which is contrary to law.

5. Learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State on verification of the records would admit the fact that two crimes were committed. Case and a counter case ought not to have been investigated by two different Investigating Officers. A solitary Investigating Officer had to investigate it.

6. 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 the IPC ought not to have been dropped from the array of charges against the complainant and others. The Investigating