The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a case and counter-case arising from a solitary incident, holding that investigations into such matters must be conducted by the same Investigating Officer to prevent grave miscarriage of justice. The Court directed de novo investigation by a single IO within three months, underscoring the State's failure to implement its own circular on the issue.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, four accused in C.C.No.34/2022 pending before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C. Kunigal, sought quashing of the entire proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The dispute arose from an incident on 22.11.2020, which resulted in two separate FIRs being registered: Crime No.138/2020 by the complainant against the petitioners, and Crime No.139/2020 by the petitioners against the complainant.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 22.11.2020 in Hosapete, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District.
- Two FIRs were registered on the same day: Crime No.138/2020 (complainant vs. petitioners) and Crime No.139/2020 (petitioners vs. complainant).
- The Investigating Officers investigating the two crimes were different, despite both crimes arising from the same incident.
- Charge sheets were filed separately in both matters, leading to parallel trials.
- The petitioners contended that the investigation was flawed as different IOs investigated the case and counter-case, violating established legal principles.
Procedural History
- 22.11.2020: Incident occurred; two FIRs registered (Crime Nos.138/2020 and 139/2020).
- 2022: Charge sheets filed in both matters; C.C.No.34/2022 initiated against petitioners.
- Filed before High Court: Criminal Petition No.10272 of 2026 under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) seeking quashing of proceedings.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
- Argued that the investigation was illegal as two different IOs investigated the case and counter-case arising from the same incident.
- Relied on judgments of the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court emphasizing that the same IO must investigate both crimes to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure justice.
For the State
- The State did not contest the petition but acknowledged the circular issued by the Director-General of Police and Inspector-General of Police on 21.06.2013, which mandated that the same IO investigate case and counter-case matters.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.34/2022.
- Quashing of the counter-case registered against respondent No.2 in Crime No.139/2020.
- Direction to the State to conduct de novo investigation by the same IO in both crimes.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether criminal proceedings arising from a solitary incident, registered as a case and a counter-case, can be investigated by different Investigating Officers without violating the principles of justice and fair trial.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others and the Karnataka High Court's judgment in Abdul Majid Sab and Others v. State of Karnataka, which held that investigations into case and counter-case must be conducted by the same IO to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure justice. They also highlighted the State's failure to implement its own circular mandating a single IO for such investigations.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the petition but acknowledged the circular issued on 21.06.2013, which directed that the same IO investigate case and counter-case matters. The State also agreed to conduct de novo investigation by a single IO.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. and State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Others, which emphasized that investigations into case and counter-case must be conducted by the same IO to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure justice. The Court noted that the State had issued a circular on 21.06.2013 to implement this principle but had failed to enforce it.
"The Apex Court observes that the Investigating Officer submits challan on the basis of the complaint lodged by two persons on the same incident. Two challans are registered. The Apex Court observes that both the incidents cannot be true. One of them must be false. Therefore, the Apex Court observes that a same Investigating Officer must investigate into a case and a counter case."
The Court also relied on the judgment in Abdul Majid Sab and Others v. State of Karnataka, which held that the same IO must investigate both cases and file a final report explaining the genesis of the incident, the injuries sustained by the accused, and the truth behind the allegations.
The Court observed that the State's failure to implement its own circular had led to grave injustice and miscarriage of justice in numerous cases. It directed the State to ensure that henceforth, a case and counter-case arising from the same incident must be investigated by the same IO.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.34/2022 and the counter-case registered in Crime No.139/2020. It directed the State to conduct de novo investigation in Crime Nos.138 and 139 of 2020 by the same Investigating Officer within three months from the date of commencement. All contentions were left open. The Court also directed the State to issue a fresh circular or amend the Karnataka Police Manual to ensure compliance with the law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Same IO for Case and Counter-Case Is Non-Negotiable
- Investigations into case and counter-case arising from the same incident must be conducted by the same IO to avoid conflicting judgments and ensure justice.
- The State's failure to implement its own circular mandating a single IO for such investigations amounts to grave injustice and miscarriage of justice.
State's Compliance With Its Own Circulars Is Mandatory
- The State must ensure strict compliance with its circulars and amend the Karnataka Police Manual to reflect the legal requirement of a single IO for case and counter-case investigations.
- Failure to implement such circulars will result in the Court directing de novo investigation and holding the State accountable for its inaction.
Quashing of Proceedings Is a Remedy for Procedural Violations
- Where investigations are conducted in violation of established legal principles, the Court will quash the proceedings and direct de novo investigation to secure the ends of justice.
- This principle applies to all cases where different IOs investigate case and counter-case arising from the same incident.
